Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION

Apprenticeships (Completion)

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements are being made in the case of those whose apprenticeships have been interrupted by service in the Forces to introduce a scheme for the completion of such apprenticeships?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): A scheme on lines similar to that which operated after the last war is in an advanced stage of preparation, and my right hon. Friend will be in a position to introduce it when the need arises. There is no urgent need for such a scheme in present circumstances, because, apart from a few individual cases in which difficulties occasionally arise, any young workers who are at present being discharged from the Forces are being readily absorbed.

Lady Apsley: Will the hon. Gentleman look further into the matter, because there is considerable anxiety?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir.

Reinstatement in Industry

Mr. Doland: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a firm, the name of which has been sent him, have informed a sergeant, now serving in the Forces in India, that owing to their reorganisation and staffing requirements no guarantee of re-engagement to any prewar member on their staff is possible, apart from any legal obligation; and, in view of the fact that this soldier served the firm for eight years prior to joining His Majesty's Forces and that such action

is liable to destroy the morale of the men in His Majesty's Forces, will he take the appropriate steps with this firm?

Mr. Tomlinson: In view of my right hon. Friend's indisposition, he would be grateful if this Question could be put down again next week.

Mr. Doland: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will agree to that suggestion, because the matter involved here is one of great principle.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE (GIRLS' TRAINING CORPS)

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now give an assurance that in the event of recruiting for the women's Services being reopened those girls who have prepared themselves in the G.T.C. will be given priority over those who have not joined any pre-Service unit?

Mr. Tomlinson: There is nothing my right hon. Friend can usefully add to the message he sent quite recently to the National Association of Training Corps for Girls, expressing the hope that if the situation changes and we need to re-open volunteer recruitment for the Women's Auxiliary Services, it may be possible when the time comes to give some measure of priority to those who have undertaken pre-Service training.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Nurses (Factories and Works)

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Minister of Labour how many full-time nurses are employed in factories and works throughout the country; and whether the salaries paid to these nurses are the same as those paid to nurses in hospitals and nursing homes?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have no exact information on this point, but an analysis of the registration forms received as a result of the national registration of nurses and midwives, carried out on 10th April, showed that at that time there were 8,389 nurses employed in industry, of whom 185 were men; about half the women so employed have been admitted either to the general or to one of the


supplementary parts of the State Register for nurses. I have no information with regard to the latter part of the Question.

Sir A. Southby: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries regarding the latter part of my Question, as it is a very important matter? Further, while it is essential that factories should be adequately staffed, there is reason to suppose that some of them are overstaffed, with the result that the civilian population is unable to get any nursing service in many cases. Will he therefore have a further inquiry made into the matter?

Mr. Tomlinson: I will have inquiries made, but I cannot promise to go as far as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests.

Sir A. Southby: After the inquiries have been made will the hon. Gentleman communicate with me so that I can put down another Question?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. McNeil: Does not my hon. Friend agree that a large number of these nurses employed in industry might be freed for civilian use and a quota of less well-trained nurses taken on?

Mr. Tomlinson: My connection with industry and nurses engaged in industry leads me to suggest that very careful thought will have to be given to this matter before industrial nurses are taken away. It has taken a long time to get them in, and now they are in it would seem to be a retrograde step to take them out.

Sir A. Southby: The trouble is that there are too many of them in.

Sir Joseph Lamb: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that many trained nurses have left hospitals and have been taken into industry, where what they are doing is very largely Red Cross work? After dressing injuries they send patients to hospitals where there are no nurses.

Shipyards (Inspecting Officers)

Colonel Greenwell: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the irritation caused to experienced managements

in many shipyards and marine-engine works by the recommendations made by inspecting committees, usually composed of individuals with little or no experience of management or of circumstances governing conditions in individual establishments, sent round by regional labour controllers; whether he is satisfied with the results obtained; and whether he will consider the advisability of suspending the functioning of these committees?

Mr. Tomlinson: I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to inspections made by technical officers of my Department in the discharge of their responsibilities in regard to the efficient use and distribution of labour. These officers, many of whom possess previous managerial experience, have a difficult task to perform in reconciling the needs, and sometimes the idiosyncracies, of particular managements with other imperative demands for labour. On the whole my right hon. Friend is satisfied that they have performed this task efficiently and without any greater degree of friction than is inevitable in such circumstances. He could not contemplate suspending the work of these inspectors, without which it would be impossible for his Department to discharge its responsibility of ensuring that the available man-power is used to the full.

Colonel Greenwell: Have any inquiries been made as to what effects these boards have? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that dislocation has been caused in some instances?

Mr. Tomlinson: We have had a good many of what I would call protests against the interference of Government Departments in the running of businesses. I think the answer I have given indicates the necessity for interference in this direction.

Ex-Service Women (Employment by Local Authorities)

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will introduce legislation to compel county and local authorities to give preference of employment, together with concessions in regard to age of entry, to ex-Service women, war widows and war orphans, respectively?

Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is not aware that there is need


for such legislation under present conditions, and it is not possible at this stage to say what the position will be after the war as regards entry into the public services.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)

Sir Smedley Crooke: asked the Minister of Pensions the general principles on which pensions are awarded to parents of deceased members of the Forces where death is clue to war service?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Warnersley): As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The circumstances of individual cases vary considerably, but the following is the basis adopted, as regards issues common to the general run of cases, in deciding whether parents are qualified for an award of pension on the ground of need. Two main factors are involved, namely, the "means limit" appropriate to the individual case and the personal income of the parents; the extent of the deceased son's contribution to the support of the parents is taken into consideration in calculating the "means limit" and the rate of pension.

In deciding the amount of the "means limit," a basic figure is adopted of 40s. a week where there are two parents and 25s. where there is one parent. To _either of these are added

(a) the amount of the deceased son's contribution to his parents' support before his war service, i.e., his full contribution, with a deduction of 10s. a week if board and lodging were provided by the parents. Where, prior to war service, the son was a student or apprentice or, by reason of youth, was earning low wages, or where he was not contributing either before or during service because the parents' circumstances did not then necessitate it, a contribution not exceeding 20S. a week is assumed, according to the circumstances of the individual case.
(b) 5s. a week in respect of each brother or sister under 15 years of age maintained in the parents' household,

less any grant such as an orphan's allowance under the Contributory Pensions Acts.

In assessing the parents' income, the personal and not the household income is taken, and the following items are disregarded.

(a) Public Assistance Out Relief.
(b) Payments under the Scheme for the Prevention and Relief of Distress.
(c) Unemployment Assistance, provided that there has been financial loss through the son's death.
(d) The first £1 of personal disability pension.
(e) The first 5s, a week of Friendly Society's sick pay.
(f) The first 10s. 6d. of National Health Insurance benefit.
(g) Half of any payment under the Workmen's Compensation Acts.
(h) The first 10s. 6d. of superannuation.
(i) The first 7s. 6d. of sickness payments under the Old Age and Widow's Pension Act, 1940.
(j) The interest on £375 (£750 in the case of two parents) of War Savings as defined in the Determination of Needs Act, 1941.
(k) The Prince of Wales Pension awarded by the British Legion.
(l) A War Service Grant.
(m) Financial assistance to the blind by local authorities.
(n) Any rent allowance paid by the Ministry of Pensions to a mother who is in receipt of a war widow's pension.

Where there are lodgers or children living at home and paying for board and lodging, one half of any payment in excess of 18s, a week by each person is regarded as income to the parent. The extent of the need is the difference between the "means limit" and the personal income assessed as above. Where the deceased was an only child, the figure thus arrived at becomes the amount of the pension, provided it does not exceed either the amount which the son might reasonably have been expected to contribute had he survived or the maximum rate of pension.

Where there are unmarried surviving children over the age of 17 who are in a position to contribute, they are regarded as sharing responsibility for meeting the need with the State as representing the deceased son. Similar principles apply where the deceased child was a daughter.


Where claims are rejected on the ground that need does not at present exist the parents are informed that they have the right to re-apply if their financial position worsens.

Sir Smedley Crooke: asked the Minister of Pensions whether the new Royal Warrant will provide increased rates of pension for dependants of deceased Service personnel, such as brothers and sisters, grandparents and grandchildren?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir. As from 26th August, 1943, when there was a general increase in war pensions, the maximum weekly rates for juvenile brothers and sisters have been raised from 5s. each, with a maximum of 10s. a week for two or more, to 6s. each, with a maximum of 15s. a week for three or more. For adult "other dependants" the maximum rate has been increased from 10s. a week to 12s. a week.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (FOOD SITUATION)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether any consultations have taken place both with imprisoned Congress leaders and with other Indian political representatives regarding the present Indian food shortage and the necessity of preparing plans to avoid its recurrence; and whether, in view of the present and future agricultural and economic needs of India, steps will be taken immediately to secure that the necessary planning shall be determined by representative and responsible Indians?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): The Government of India have been in the closest consultation with Indian representatives of various political points of view. The recent Foodgrains Policy Committee contained nine nonofficial Indian members in addition to representatives of the Government of India and of certain Provincial and State Governments, including the Government of Bengal. The conclusions of this Committee were discussed at a Conference with Provincial and States representatives at Delhi. I have no doubt that this policy of full discussion with representative Indians will be continued.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister realise that he has not answered the first part

of my Question, which asks specifically whether any consultations have taken place with the imprisoned Congress leaders? Would it not be well if consultations did take place with the representatives of so important a body?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member is no doubt aware that four years ago Congress leaders deliberately rejected any responsibility for Provincial government and that they have since embarked on a policy of irresponsible sabotage of the war effort. Until they make it clear that their policy is entirely changed, there is no reason why they should become responsible for this essentially Provincial problem.

Mr. Sorensen: But is it not worth while swallowing this foolish pride, seeing that these men, whatever we may think about them, are the representatives of the largest single political force in India?

Viscountess Astor: Would it not be a wise thing if the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), who asks so many Questions about India and seems to know so little about it, was sent to India by the House of Commons so that he could see for himself?

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Might it not be advantageous to consult Mr. Gandhi as most of the reputed hoarders are his fellow caste men?

Commander Locker-Lampson: Has not the time come when, in order to help the food shortage in India, the Indians should stop worshipping the cow and begin to eat it?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is now able to state the number of deaths from starvation in India and in Bengal in particular; the total amount of foodstuffs now being imported weekly; whether shipping is being provided for the transportation of grain from Australia; and the date at which the Central Indian Government prepared provisional plans in respect of the anticipated famine conditions now prevailing?

Mr. Amery: It is estimated that between 15th August and 16th October about 8,000 persons have died in Calcutta from causes directly or indirectly due to malnutrition. No reliable figures are available for the country districts, but conditions in South-East and South-West Bengal are, I fear, worse than in Calcutta. I have no reliable figure for the whole of India.
Imports of foodstuffs into Bengal, if that is the figure desired, are at the rate of 2,400 tons a day. I cannot give a figure for imports into India from overseas in terms of weekly arrivals, as arrival is dependent on a number of varying factors; but the hon. Member will have observed that three ships carrying nearly 20,000 tons between them have already come in. I am not prepared to specify the sources from which shipping is being sent to India, but I would repeat that His Majesty's Government are making every effort to assist.
As regards the last part of the Question, the first Price Control Conference of Provincial and other representatives was called by the Centre in October, 1939. The first Food Conference took place in December, 1942, and was followed by a series of further conferences and more recently by tire appointment of the Food-grains Committee to which I have just referred.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Prime Minister of Australia has announced that there are sufficient grains in Australia to feed the starving population in India if shipping could be available? Can we take it that commercial shipping for India is No. 1 on the priority list?

Mr. Amery: It is true that Australia, and indeed all the Dominions, and His Majesty's Government, are only too anxious to supply food to India if the very great difficulties of the shipping situation can be overcome.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India the nature of the Famine Relief Fund announced to be, or to have been, established by Lord Wavell; and whether further appeals for War Loan to the people of India will be suspended during the existence of this fund?

Mr. Amery: The fund will receive gifts of money for allocation to Bengal and other parts of India suffering distress. With regard to the second part of the Question, there is no reason to suppose that subscriptions to the Viceroy's Distress Relief Fund, which is a purely charitable appeal, would be affected by the existence of Defence Loans, necessary to absorb redundant currency and counteract inflation.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only last week he stated that the need was not for money at all, and he therefore deprecated any suggestion that moneys devoted to War Loan should be put to this purpose? Surely he will admit that Lord Wavell, on the spot, understands the need and that there must be some justification for the fund that he has established?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member has misunderstood what I said. I said that the difficulty of helping from outside India lay not in money but in getting the actual food to India.

Mr. Sorensen: If that is so, the moneys which have been raised in India for War Loan could very well be diverted to that purpose?

Mr. Amery: The people who contribute do so from very different motives. One of the main causes of the famine has been the inflationary tendency in. India, and anything that can relieve that tendency will, of course, also help the famine situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Dogs

Lieut.-Colonel Wickham: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of dogs both licensed and exempted in Somerset at the latest convenient date; and how far, judged by other agricultural counties, this number is disproportionate to the population?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): For the year 1942 the number of dogs licensed and exempted in Somerset were, respectively, 36,523 and about 6,000. I have obtained comparative figures for three counties with comparable populations and I find that the percentage of dogs to population is 7.57 in Somerset, 7.56 in Devon, 7.89 in Wilts, and 5.59 in Northumberland.

Lieut.-Colonel Wickham: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the damage caused by stray dogs to farm livestock and to gardens no longer protected by railings; and whether he will instruct the police authorities to make full use of their existing powers in order to abate this nuisance?

Mr. Morrison: I have no doubt that the police will do their best to render such help as they can in this matter. The flow of communications which it is necessary to send to the police is so large that I am reluctant to add to it by issuing a general circular on this subject, but if my hon. and gallant Friend knows of any case where the police appear to have been unhelpful and will send me particulars, I will look into it.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Lord President of the Council whether enough owners of milk herds have been secured to carry out the Agricultural Research Council's field experiments to test their B.C.G. vaccine for the control of bovine tuberculosis; and whether these experiments, as far as they have gone, are proving successful?

Captain McEwen (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The Agricultural Research Council, with the collaboration of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, have been fortunate in finding sufficient herds to start the field experiments with B.C.G. vaccine, and further herds may be included in the future. The test is one which must last over 5–6 years, of which the present is the first. It is clearly much too early to reach any conclusions.

Mr. Leach: What is bovine tuberculosis, and why are no deaths reported from it in the Registrar-General's returns or the Ministry of Health figures?

Captain McEwen: I could not answer that question without notice.

Women's Land Army (Trainee's Accident)

Sir Smedley Crooke: asked the Minister of. Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Miss Kathleen Giles, a trainee in the W.L.A. at the Cumberland and Westmorland Farm School, Newton Rigg, Penarth, who in May last in the course of her training was struck in the eye by a cow's horn resulting in the loss of one of her eyes; is he aware that his Department disclaims any responsibility for granting compensation such as is undertaken by any other employer in similar circumstances, while this girl besides suffering pain is disfigured for

life; and will he have this matter reconsidered so that at least she can be recompensed financially?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am aware of this case and much regret the accident which occurred to Miss Giles. Members of the Women's Land Army are dealt with on the same basis as ordinary agricultural workers in regard to any injuries arising out of and in the course of their duties, that is, under the basis of the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Miss Giles was paid compensation on the basis of the Workmen's Compensation Act for the period that her injury prevented her from working.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTORAL REFORM

Major Peto: asked the Home Secretary whether he has in mind at this time any reform of electoral law that will enable the many thousands of bedridden persons in Great Britain to exercise their right of franchise, either by allowing them to be put on the absent voters' list or by proxy?

Mr. H. Morrison: Any question of extending the category of persons who under the existing law may claim to vote by post or by proxy would be appropriate to the forthcoming Debate on electoral reform. I would suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend should make his suggestion then for the consideration of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — STIPENDIARY MAGISTRACY, LONDON

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the congestion in the London police courts, he will consider the appointment of an extra stipendiary magistrate, with roving powers, to assist wherever needed in the acceleration of public business?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am informed by the Chief Magistrate that there is no general congestion in the Metropolitan courts and that any delay there may have been was local and temporary. There are at the moment 23 magistrates to serve 13 courts, at which the average sitting time is not more than three-and-a-half hours a day. Moreover, magistrates, although normally serving particular courts, can be, and are, called upon to sit at any court as the


need arises. Any temporary inconvenience is caused by the number and situation of separate courts that have to be served. I am grateful, however, to my hon. Friend for his suggestion which I will consider with the Chief Magistrate.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHERMEN (FIRE-GUARD DUTIES)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Home Secretary whether, under the new fireguard regulations the term "a sea-going ship" includes a fishing boat concerned in fishing off-shore, or whether it only implies a ship travelling from port to port; and if fishermen, as such, are exempt from fire-guard duties in their hours ashore?

Mr. H. Morrison: Inshore fishermen are not exempt under the Fire Guard Orders, but the master and crew of any fishing vessel which undertakes a distant journey for fishing purposes are so exempt.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAIL (GRANT BY MAGISTRATES)

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Home Secretary how many persons during the years 1940, 1941 and 1942, who have been refused bail by magistrates, have been found not guilty by juries when tried at assizes; and what recent instructions have been given to magistrates in regard to the granting of bail?

Mr. H. Morrison: Figures in the form asked for are not available, but the number of persons committed to prison on remand or for trial and subsequently found not guilty was 1,221 in 1940, 1,439 in 1941 and 1,294 in 1942. These figures—which include persons remanded for a medical report—are approximately 2½ per cent. of the total number of persons so committed. No advice has recently been given to magistrates about the grant of bail, but I am in full sympathy with the principle that, unless there are cogent reasons to the contrary, justices should make full use of their discretionary power to grant bail. In a circular letter sent by the Home Office to chief constables in January, 1939, it was pointed out that whenever the police oppose the grant of bail they incur serious responsibility, and it was emphasised that bail should not be opposed unless there is reason to believe that its grant would defeat the ends of justice or expose persons to danger.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider sending a new circular to magistrates, asking them to grant bail on every possible occasion unless there is any risk involved?

Mr. Morrison: The difficulty is that the circumstances which make it proper for magistrates to refuse bail are necessarily very varied, and I doubt whether any useful purpose would be served by such a circular. Nevertheless, I hope that the Question, and my reply, will perhaps meet the need.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate his reply to the magistrates?

Mr. Morrison: I think magistrates have ways of seeing my replies.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is it made known to persons who are refused bail that they have a right of appeal to a High Court Judge, who can overrule the magistrates?

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE COURTS (HEREFORD CASE, INQUIRY)

Mr. Astor: asked the Home Secretary the terms of reference of Lord Justice Goddard's Inquiry?

Mr. H. Morrison: In order that Lord Justice Goddard may be armed with full powers to conduct an effective inquiry the House will be asked to pass a Resolution under the Tribunals of Enquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. The Motion which has been put on the Order Paper for this purpose shows that the inquiry will be comprehensive and will cover the whole conduct of the Hereford Juvenile Court in the proceedings against Craddock and Payne. To facilitate the inquiry the Treasury Solicitor will arrange for the calling of witnesses and the presentation of evidence. In so doing, he will act at the request and subject to the instructions of Lord Justice Goddard, and he will not be acting on behalf of any of the persons whose conduct is the subject of inquiry or of any Government Department. He is now proceeding, on the instructions of the Lord Justice, to collect the evidence which is required and it is hoped that those concerned will give him all the necessary assistance.

Mr. Astor: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the terms of reference


are sufficiently wide that the action and procedure of the courts involved in this case will be subject to review?

Mr. Morrison: I am dealing only with the Hereford Juvenile Court, as I understand it, in this case, and the inquiry will cover the conduct of the prosecution by the police, the conduct of the proceedings by the local justices themselves, the guidance given to them by the clerk, the procedure followed in announcing and giving effect to the court's order of corporal punishment, the considerations which the justices had in mind in committing the boys to the care of the local education authority and the treatment of the boys when in the care of that authority. I think that sphere of inquiry should cover the whole ground.

Mr. Astor: Would it cover the procedure by which the High Court reviewed the case with inadequate affidavits, the result of which was a Press campaign of great virulence, which may subsequently be regretted?

Mr. Morrison: I must make it clear that it is no part of the purpose of the inquiry to review the proceedings of the High Court, and, if I did anything like that, I am not sure where I should finish up.

Sir Percy Harris: Will it be open to the public?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS

Training Schemes

Mr. Astor: asked the Home Secretary how many prisoners have been trained under Ministry of Labour and National Service training schemes during their sentences; and what measures of success have these schemes achieved?

Mr. H. Morrison: Training schemes in engineering fitting have been started at three prisons and some 150 men have now been trained. These classes are not organised by the Ministry of Labour and National Service, but on release the men have all been placed in skilled work with the co-operation of the Ministry. Only one man has failed to make good, and the scheme can, I think, be regarded as most successful.

Mr. Astor: Are these prisoners getting paid for work, according to the experiment which was started with some success before the war?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, they are paid the ordinary and very modest sums which prisoners get for working.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: In view of the remarkable success of these training schemes, will my right hon. Friend take steps to see that they are extended and continued in peace-time?

Mr. Morrison: I am most anxious that that shall be done, although we may get up against certain interests when we do it; but really the system has been remarkably successful, and I think the Prison Commissioners are to be warmly congratulated on the efforts they have made. I hope very much this system can continue in peace-time.

Young Persons

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Home Secretary how many young people under 21 years of age are imprisoned in England and Wales; at what hour they are locked up on week-nights and how many hours they spend in their cells from noon on Saturday until Monday morning; and what provision is made for lectures or classes in each of the several prisons receiving these young people?

Mr. Morrison: Statistics are compiled annually as to the young persons under 21 sent to prison, and I am reluctant in present circumstances to add to the clerical work of the Department by calling for special returns showing the number in prison at the present time. The week-end arrangements for young prisoners are not the same at all establishments, and the treatment and training of these persons vary according to whether they are on remand or convicted and to the length of their sentence. Their character and standard of education are also taken into consideration. It would be difficult to deal with so large a subject by way of Parliamentary Question and answer, but if my hon. Friend would care to visit one of the prisons dealing with this class of offender I shall be very pleased to make the necessary arrangements.

Mr. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that I shall be let out again if I do go?

Mr. Morrison: As long as the conduct of my hon. Friend is unexceptionable, he has nothing to fear.

Mr. Messer: Is there any hope of reintroducing the Bill which was dropped at the outbreak of war which would have made it impossible for anyone under 21 to go to prison?

Mr. Morrison: I should not think so. I am fairly well loaded with legislation of an exciting character at the moment.

Mrs. Hardie: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that many young people are sent to prison for no crime at all, only because they cannot get a bus to get them to work in time, and will he consider that position?

Mr. Morrison: That is another question.

Accommodation, Wandsworth Prison

Mr. Messer: asked the Home Secretary how many prisoners were sharing cells in Wandsworth Prison in May, 1943; what was the largest number in any one cell; whether there were any medical or other special reasons for sharing as provided in Prison Regulations No. 4; and what special sanitary facilities were provided?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am having inquiries made and will write to my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINSBURY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETING (POLICE ACTION)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to an incident at the Town Hall, Finsbury, on 18th October, when, despite the standing orders of the council to the contrary, a sergeant and a police constable threatened forcibly to eject certain councillors who were exercising their right to listen to the proceedings of a special committee of which they were not members; and what action he proposes taking in the matter?

Mr. H. Morrison: I have made inquiry into this matter and I understand that the sergeant and constable were requested by the chairman of a committee to eject four councillors, who were not members of the committee and in respect of whom a resolution had been passed by the committee requiring them to retire. The police officers inquired whether all the necessary formalities in accordance with the standing

orders of the council had been complied with, and were informed by the chairman that the committee's resolution was sufficient for this purpose. The chairman then, in the presence of the police officers, requested the four councillors to withdraw. As they refused to comply with this request, the police officers informed the councillors that they must leave and that if they did not they would be ejected, if necessary by force. The councillors thereupon left the meeting. In these circumstances I can find no ground for questioning the conduct of the police officers.

Sir H. Williams: Has my right hon. Friend verified whether the police officers were actually acting in accord with the standing orders?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend and I, perhaps I more than he, are very familiar with municipal standing orders, and honestly, while I expect my policemen to be experts about many things, I do not expect them to be experts about a council's standing orders. I think the only thing they could do was to ask for an assurance from the chairman that the action was in accordance with the standing orders and, having received his reply, to act accordingly. I think the fundamental responsibility is with the chairman and not the police.

Sir H. Williams: Surely if councillors are forcibly ejected by the police and the police are acting on wrong information they would be liable for assault; they would not be justified in taking action because someone told them they could. Would it not be worth while for my right hon. Friend to find out whether in fact the standing orders were complied with?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think I want to go any further. If there are possible actions about I had better keep out of it. My hon. Friend, like me, is a member of the London County Council and he will know that there are about 500 standing orders and 2,000 regulations and many committee rules, and neither he nor I could stand cross-examination upon many of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (TEXTILE OPERATIVES)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that cases have recently arisen in Lancashire where


one time textile operatives are now suffering from what is commonly called spinner's cancer; that the mills in which they were ordinarily employed have been closed by Government for more than 12 months; that they have therefore lost contact where the disease originated and with their employers for the 12 months mentioned in Section 43 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, and cannot claim compensation in respect of their incapacity; and can he do anything to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr. H. Morrison: My attention has not previously been drawn to cases such as those referred to in the Question. I feel doubtful whether it would be possible for me to take any action, but if my hon. Friend will be good enough to furnish me with particulars of the cases I shall be glad to consider the position further.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOMBING RESTRICTION COMMITTEE

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to an association called the Bombing Restriction Committee and, as their activities are clearly evidence of their pro-German sympathies, will he take steps to restrict such activities and intern the leaders?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am aware of the existence of this Committee and I have seen specimens of the leaflets issued by them. The scope of their propaganda is very limited and its influence on public opinion is negligible. I have no evidence that their sympathies are pro-German, nor have I any reason to question the sincerity of their motives, which they conceive to be purely humanitarian; and I should not feel justified, as things are, in using emergency powers to prevent them from giving expression to their misguided views.

Mr. Purbrick: Is it not evident that if the policy of not bombing any civilians Germany was carried out, we should not be able to carry through our policy of bombing their war production plants, and thereby our war effort would be absolutely nullified?

Mr. Morrison: I quite follow the argument of my hon. Friend, but in my judgment

if people sincerely hold the view that bombing should be abolished or restricted, I cannot see that it is terrible to say so. There is no danger that the bombing will leave off, anyway. I would draw the attention of the House to how often I am condemned for using exceptional powers and how much more often I am pressed to use them.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the object these people have in mind is to restrict and prevent the bombing of civilians, which is another problem entirely?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (ALIENS, NATURALISATION)

Mr. Linstead: asked the Home Secretary whether he is prepared to receive applications for naturalisation from foreign nationals serving in His Majesty's forces; and whether such applications will be proceeded with if they are lodged?

Mr. H. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to my replies to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Pearson) and the Supplementary Question by my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) on 14th October.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE DELINQUENTS (APPROVED SCHOOLS)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that several delinquents in Salford, ordered by the court to be sent to approved schools many months ago, are still detained in remand homes because there is no accommodation in those schools; that they are brought back to the court periodically and that the authorities complain of the situation; and will he take steps to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am aware of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers and can assure him that new approved schools have been and are being provided as rapidly as is possible under war-time conditions. Seven new schools already opened in the North of England are now coming increasingly into use as necessary adaptations are completed and I have every hope that the position will become much easier during the winter.

Mr. Davies: May I take it, therefore, that the difficulties in Salford will be overcome very soon?

Mr. Morrison: I could not be quite sure, but I would hope so in view of the nature of the answer. I think we have done very well in the difficult war-time conditions.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Part III Authorities

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Education whether before he decided to include in the White Paper a proposal to abolish Part III authorities and transfer their functions to county councils, he considered the working of the 1929 Act in Scotland which effected a similar change and resulted in destroying the hitherto great interest in education in many Scottish boroughs; and, in view of the unsatisfactory effects on education in Scotland, will he reconsider the present proposal?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): The hon. Member is, I think, under some misapprehension as to the effect of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, to which, I understand, he refers. The effect of that Act was, I am advised, to transfer the functions of the ad hoc county and burgh education authorities to the county and burgh councils of the same areas. It is not within my province to comment on the position in Scotland resulting there-from.

Mr. Lipson: Does my right hon. Friend realise that it is very unwise to abolish these efficient Part III authorities?

Mr. Butler: That raises a wider question.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the system in Scotland is working very well?

Girls' Training Corps (Uniforms)

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will give consideration to the question of giving financial assistance for the provision of uniforms for the G.T.C. in view of the difficulty now being experienced in this connection and the valuable services being rendered?

Mr. Butler: I am well aware of these difficulties. They are the same for all voluntary organisations the members of which are not given financial assistance for their personal equipment.

Mr. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the strong feeling on this subject all over the country, and cannot he do something, as the President of the Board of Trade is unable to do anything and has referred us to him?

Mrs. Tate: And is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that this is one of the very few really constructive efforts to help girls who are exposed to-day to exceptional temptations and that it is absolute folly for the Government not to give this justifiable concession?

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: Is it not a fact that the Girls' Training Corps is in a different position from that of other voluntary organisations, seeing that it was set up by a Government Department and the other organisations were not?

Mr. Butler: I certainly cannot accept the view of the hon. Lady. This organisation owes a great deal, it is true, to the Government, and it is doing most excellent work for girls, and I very much regret that it is not possible to make this concession. Nobody would be keener than I to make it, were it possible.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Education the total expenditure for education from public funds in England and Wales for the last recorded year; and how it was divided between taxes and rates?

Mr. Butler: As far as expenditure on education coming within the purview of my Department is concerned, the total expenditure from public funds in England and Wales for the year 1940–41 was £98,709,000. Of this sum £52,156,000 was met from taxes and £46,553,000 from rates.

Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend explain why the figure for the last year is £98,000,000, while the figure given in the White Paper is £123,000,000?

Mr. Butler: I must have notice of that Question so that I can give my hon. Friend an accurate answer.

Engineering Cadets

Mr. Gretton: asked the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that engineering cadets, who are required to undergo courses of training at technical colleges to qualify them for commissioned rank in technical units of the Services are being subjected by uniformed persons to the accusation of being shirkers, he will provide for the issue to them of a distinctive uniform or badge?

Mr. Butler: Very many young men are properly engaged on essential work or training as civilians without uniform or badges, and the engineering cadets are not in any special position in this respect. I take this opportunity of emphasising the fact that the engineering cadets are performing the most valuable form of war service open to them individually.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Mentally Defective Children, Lancashire

Mr. Ralph Etherton: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that the provision for mentally defective children in Lancashire is adequate; how many children are at present awaiting admission to an institution; and in such case when it is anticipated accommodation will be available?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): My right hon. Friend is aware that in Lancashire, as in other areas, there is a shortage of institutional accommodation for mental defectives. I understand that the number of defective children in Lancashire awaiting admission to institutions is 108. They will be admitted to institutions as and when vacancies occur.

Mr. Etherton: Will my hon. Friend inquire whether the number of beds held empty for emergency cases is not more than is required, and whether some could not be filled from the waiting list?

Miss Horsbrugh: We have looked into this question but I am afraid that there is very little hope of my hon. Friend's suggestion being adopted.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will not the hon. Lady look further into the matter? Is it not a fact that accommodation is available and that the problem is to get nurses and staff to look after these children?

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is it not time that we stopped using the offensive expression "mentally defective children"?

Viscountess Astor: Is it not a fact that there are empty beds all over the country while children are waiting for admission?

Miss Horsbrugh: If the Noble Lady will give me the addresses of the institutions where, she says, there are these vacancies, I shall be only too pleased to look into the matter.

Viscountess Astor: I did not say "institutions." I was speaking about provision which was made under the Ministry of Health.

Rushcliffe Committee

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health whether any recommendation of the Rushcliffe Committee on the question of transfer of superannuation rights between public and private superannuation funds will be made retrospective; and, if so, for what period?

Miss Horsbrugh: The Committee have not yet reported on this matter, and I regret, therefore, that my right hon. Friend is unable to make any statement in regard to it.

Mr. Messer: Does the hon. Lady realise what that means to nurses who have gone out of the nursing profession into civil defence and have forfeited their superannuation rights?

Miss Horsbrugh: I am aware of the problem, but I hope that the Committee will report soon.

Mr. Messer: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that no mental nurse or observation ward nurse is on the Rushcliffe Committee or sub-committee dealing with mental nurses' salaries; and whether he will either secure their representation or see that they are given an opportunity for submitting evidence?

Miss Horsbrugh: There are on the Mental Nurses' Sub-committee appointed in association with the Rushcliffe Committee three members of the staff of mental hospitals. My right hon. Friend has received some representations about the position of nurses employed in the mental observation wards of public health hospitals and public assistance institutions and he is in communication with the committee on the matter.

Mr. Messer: Is it not a fact that the staff to which the hon. Lady refers are not mental nurses?

Miss Horsbrugh: I did not say that they were not mental nurses. As the problem has arisen, a communication has gone out.

Water Supply, Wales and Monmouthshire

Sir Charles Edwards: asked the Minister of Health whether any steps are being taken to conserve the water supplies which are now running to waste in Wales and Monmouthshire; and whether it is intended to do this on a regional or other large-scale basis so as to assist in the restoration and development of industry?

Miss Horsbrugh: Under existing law, the primary responsibility for the provision of public water supplies rests with statutory water undertakers. It is the policy of my right hon. Friend within the limits of his present powers, to encourage developments which may lend themselves to the better conservation and use of our resources. Future policy in this matter is engaging my right hon. Friend's attention, but he is not yet in a position to make any statement in regard to it.

Sun-ray Lamps (Albion Works, Bilston)

Mr. Hannah: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether, in view of the need for safeguarding the health of their workpeople, the Albion Works at Bilston can be given an opportunity of having some members of their staff trained in the use of sun-ray lamps;
(2) what steps were taken, before refusing them permission to buy a sun-ray lamp, to find out whether the Albion Works at Bilston had anyone capable of using a sunray lamp effectively?

Miss Horsbrugh: The manufacture of sun-ray lamps involves the use of skilled labour and materials which must be devoted, as far as possible, to armament production, and my right hon. Friend is, therefore, asked by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to recommend that these lamps should be supplied only where the fullest use of them is likely to be made for cases for which they are clearly required. My right hon. Friend's medical advisers inform him that ultra violet and infra red lamps ought to be used only under strict medical control. Their indiscriminate use

may lead to harmful results, and the question is not, therefore, one merely of having staff trained in the use of these lamps. My right hon. Friend is advised that it is important that persons submitting themselves to treatment should be under close medical supervision. It is not considered that this essential safeguard could be secured where a works doctor attends less than three times a week. Any apparatus not requiring this close medical supervision is of little value clinically. In the case of the Albion Works, two letters were submitted personally to the Ministry's officers by a director of the firm, but they did not indicate that there would be such close supervision of treatment as to satisfy my right hon. Friend's medical advisers.

Mr. Hannah: Is it suggested that the whole town of Bilston cannot supply medical knowledge of the type required?

Miss Horsbrugh: This reply refers to the use of these lamps in a factory, and it is a question of whether it is better that it should be used only where a doctor attends at that factory at least three times a week.

Mr. Hannah: Could not arrangements be made for a doctor to attend the Albion Works four times a week?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Women Living Alone

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make it a condition of future grants to local authorities when formulating housing schemes that they should provide a substantial measure of suitable accommodation at economic rentals for women living alone?

Miss Horsbrugh: Local authorities are I think in agreement with my right hon. Friend that it is important that future housing schemes should include the provision of suitable accommodation for single persons. The priority to be given to the various types of accommodation in the post-war programmes will have to be considered in relation to the circumstances of each district. The form of any Exchequer subsidy is one of the questions which my right hon. Friend proposes to discuss with the associations of local authorities in due course.

Agricultural Workers

Mr. Barstow: asked the Minister of Health the building costs of the two cottages for agricultural workers in course of erection in the parish of Latimer, near Chesham; the cost of the site for the two cottages and its area; whether a water main has been laid to them; and whether septic tank drainage is being provided?

Miss Horsbrugh: My information is that there are no cottages being erected by the local authority for agricultural workers in the parish of Latimer. My hon. Friend may have in mind, however, the two cottages which are being built in the adjoining parish of Ashley Green, and the particulars for which he asks are as follow: £1,873; £150; and 125 ft, by 100 ft., respectively; there is an existing water main; and septic tank drainage is being provided.

Mr. Barstow: Is the hon. Lady aware that the cost of this site was over £500 an acre, that this site is on the corner of an agricultural field, that this field is now being ploughed up and that there is no water main in that particular district?

Miss Horsbrugh: My information was that there is a water main, but I shall be very glad to look into the matter again if the hon. Member says that is not the case.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Can the hon. Lady tell us whether the hot water pipes run through the larders and that no provision is made for shelving as is the case with the two cottages already built under the scheme, to erect 3,000?

Miss Horsbrugh: In all the plans put out by the Ministry of Health the hot water pipes did not run through the larder, and we would urge rural district councils who are building to follow the plans.

Mr. Stokes: Does the hon. Lady consider £500 an acre to be a fair rate for agricultural land?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Miss Horsbrugh: I think that is a matter of opinion. Perhaps I might have a word with the hon. Gentleman on another occasion.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Health how many cottages for agricultural

workers have been allocated to the Malton Rural District Council, Yorkshire; whether difficulties have arisen in obtaining suitable sites for the cottages; have compulsory powers been applied for; and what has been the result of the Ministry of Health inquiry into the matter, so that there is an early prospect of acquiring suitable sites at a fair price?

Miss Horsbrugh: Eight cottages for agricultural workers were allocated to the Malton Rural District Council who experienced difficulties in obtaining sites at Thornton-le-Clay and Bulmer where it was proposed to erect two cottages each. The Council made and submitted for my right hon. Friend's decision Compulsory Purchase Orders for sites at both places and he has informed the Council of his decision to confirm the Thornton-le-Clay Order. The Bulmer Order need not be confirmed as the Council reached agreement with the owner for the purchase of a somewhat larger area. The building of the cottages on both sites was begun on 27th September last.

Mr. Stokes: Can the hon. Lady tell the House what are the main difficulties in acquiring the site?

Mrs. Tate: As the completion of these cottages was promised by harvest time, could the hon. Lady tell us, quite confidentially, which harvest?

Miss Horsbrugh: There were several difficulties in both the sites. In the case of the Bulmer site, it was already a housing site and the difficulty was that it had had to be divided up, giving a frontage to certain cottages and not using the whole area. A decision has now been reached that the whole area shall be used for housing.

Mr. Turton: Is it not a fact that these cottages are being built with considerable expedition by local authorities?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, in many cases when labour was available the cottages were built in 11 weeks.

Timber Houses

Mr. Hannah: asked the Minister of Health whether he has made any inquiries into the possibility of using permanent wooden houses on the Canadian model after the war to help relieve the short-age?

Miss Horsbrugh: I can assure my hon. Friend that the possibilities of timber houses and of other alternative forms of construction for use after the war are being carefully examined by the Interdepartmental Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir George Burt.

Mr. Hannah: Would not timber houses make a rather good relief in appearance from the eternal brick ones, and is the House aware that there are extremely comfortable timber houses more than 100 years old in Canada and the U.S.A.?

Earl Winterton: Could the hon. Lady say what steps her Department are taking to get into communication with the War Office, who at this moment are demolishing a large number of very large and commodious huts which are superior to the new cottages being built? Are any steps being taken by her Department to acquire them?

Miss Horsbrugh: I would like notice of that Question.

Mr. Hannah: Could I have an answer?

Ridley Committee (Terms of Reference)

Mr. William Brown: asked the Minister of Health whether the terms of reference of the Ridley Committee will include the question of the selling prices of houses as well as the question of the rent control of houses?

Miss Horsbrugh: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is, however, having the question of the selling price of houses examined in co-operation with the other Government Departments concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORPHANS OF DIVORCED PARENTS (PENSIONS)

Mr. Oliver: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the anomalous position of children of divorced parents where the parents die during the children's dependency, as no provision is made for the granting of orphans' pensions in respect of them notwithstanding the payments by the father during his lifetime of contributions under the appropriate statute; and whether he will consider amending existing legislation to remedy this oversight in the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1936?

Miss Horsbrugh: The position under the present Contributory Pensions Scheme as regards orphan children of divorced parents is not set out quite accurately in the first part of my hon. Friend's Question; as this matter is somewhat involved I am sending him a detailed statement. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) on 25th May last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Oliver: Will the hon. Lady say what the answer was on that occasion? If it was that the Minister did not intend to do anything in the matter, can she say what justification exists for this discrimination?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think that when the hon. Member receives the detailed statement he will see that there is no discrimination. As to the answer, it was that my right hon. Friend could not undertake to introduce legislation at this time, pending the completion of the Government's comprehensive review of social insurance and allied services.

Mr. Oliver: Is the hon. Lady aware that the review might take years while this matter requires attention now, because these children are paupers?

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE PARLIAMENTARY ASSO CIATION (PROCEEDINGS AT OTTAWA AND WASHINGTON)

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the letter from the hon. Member for Kidderminster, dated 21st October, regarding the resolutions of the United States Senate and House of Representatives in June and July last in connection with the visit of Congress representatives to Ottawa; and whether he has any statement to make?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I am very glad to have this opportunity of saying a few words about the Conference which on the invitation of the Canadian branch of the Empire Parliamentary Association recently took place at Ottawa between delegations from the branches of the Association in Canada, the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand and Bermuda. A notable feature of the meeting to which


my hon. Friend has drawn attention, was the presence of members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives of the United States of America.
The informal discussions in Canada, some of which were attended by the United States delegation, afforded a valuable opportunity for exchange of private and quite unofficial views on matters of great interest, covering both defence and international problems of the British Commonwealth and Empire and also questions of relations between members of the Commonwealth and the United States in war and in peace. The United Kingdom delegation also had an opportunity while in Canada of discussions with the Canadian and Provincial Prime Ministers and of seeing evidences of Canada's war effort in both defence and aggressive operations and in the industrial sphere, for which we express our gratitude. These meetings were followed by a visit of certain members of the delegation to Washington, where they attended the Senate and House of Representatives and also met a number of members of Congress personally, and in addition they paid a visit to Bermuda. Everywhere they received the most cordial welcome and generous hospitality.
Apart from its value as a means of personal contact and interchange of opinion between representatives of the different members of the British Commonwealth, which is of such importance to our mutual relations, this Conference was of historic significance as being the first occasion on which representatives of the United States of America had taken part in such a gathering. I am sure that I am voicing the feelings of the House in expressing our obligations to all those, whether in Canada or in the other countries concerned, who by their organisation of the Conference and their interest in its proceedings helped to contribute to its success, as well as of course to all those who took part in its deliberations. I should also like to express our thanks to all those in both Canada and the United States who accorded such open-handed hospitality to these visitors from overseas. In all these events we can see a happy augury of fellowship and mutual understanding in the days when after victory we face together the problems of peace.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR CASUALTIES

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Prime Minister when he will be able to announce the war casualties of this country up to date; whether he is aware that similar statistics are issued covering regular short periods by the Government of the United States; and whether announcements on this score can be made at shorter intervals by His Majesty's Government in future?

The Prime Minister: I have at present nothing to add to the answer which I gave on 14th October in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). I see that I said:
I will see what can be done about publishing casualties from time to time. A long interval will, however, have to elapse after the date covered by the return. The enemy do not give us any similar accurate or truthful facilities. The Dominions have to be consulted, and I cannot make any promise now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th October, 1943; col. 1086, Vol. 392.]
I cannot add more than that.

Mr. Davies: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I take it that he will be aware that the last set of figures we had were brought up to September, 1942, and that what disturbs some people in studying this matter is that the United States Government are able to give the figures publicly almost monthly, in spite of the statement that it is useful information to the enemy?

The Prime Minister: I say that I am not closing the door in any final way.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENDITURE)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the copy sent to him of a paper presented to the Royal Statistical Society by Mr. K. S. Lomax on the relationship between expenditure per head and size of population of county boroughs in England and Wales; and, having regard to the fact that apparently towns with a population of 100,000 to 190,000 get better value for money than either larger or smaller towns, whether his Department is considering the implications of this conclusion?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, Sir. I would, however, remind my hon. Friend that the


Royal Commission on the Distribution of Industrial Population came to the conclusion that it is difficult to substantiate the claim or to show that, from the point of view of cost of municipal services, there is an optimum size for towns.

Sir H. Williams: As this document was written since the Royal Commission reported, and since they did not have this evidence in front of them, is it not the case that we cannot attach a great deal of importance to their conclusions based on a lack of evidence?

Oral Answers to Questions — BOMBING POLICY

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Prime Minister whether he will allocate the whole of the production of heavy bombers in this country to R.A.F. Bomber Command, to be employed solely for the purpose of bombing Germany; and will he bring back immediately to this country all our heavy bombers which are at present abroad for that same purpose, with a view to the destruction of Germany's production of war material?

The Prime Minister: I cannot discuss operational dispositions at Question time.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Health whether a pensioner, in receipt of the scale rate of 37s. plus 8d, rent allowance and whose superannuation has been disregarded in his assessment, is entitled to the winter allowance in full, or whether superannuation is to be no longer regarded as a free resource when determining entitlement to winter allowance?

Miss Horsbrugh: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) on 4th December, 1941, in the course of which the principles governing the grant of winter additions were fully explained. I am sending a copy of this reply to my hon. Friend, and if he has any case in mind, I shall be glad to have particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Land Purchase (Local Authorities)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether

his attention has been drawn to the fact that land is assessed for Death Duties at the value at the time of the death of the owner; and how he proposes that land that may be purchased by a public authority should be bought at the value as at 31st March, 1939?

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am aware of the fact to which my hon. Friend draws attention. For the detailed application of the principle of the 1939 ceiling I would ask him to await the necessary legislation.

Sir H. Williams: May we take it that there is no possibility that on the same day the State will acquire land at one price, and tax it at another?

Mr. Morrison: The point is worthy of careful consideration. When we come to legislate we shall be able to discuss it further.

Mr. Shinwell: About this necessary legislation, of which we have heard a great deal recently, could the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be forthcoming?

Mr. Morrison: I hope in good time for its purpose.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman amplify his reply by saying what is meant by "in good time"?

Mr. Morrison: In time for it to be effective for the purposes for which it is designed.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In order to get over the difficulty of the dates mentioned by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), would it not be easier to ask landlords to die at the appropriate date?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid that such a request would not be welcomed with any unanimity.

Mr. Stokes: Will any legislation be accompanied by an explanation of how the 1939 valuation was arrived at?

Mr. Morrison: It will contain proposals which the House can discuss.

Viscountess Astor: Is there any reason why Lord Reith should—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether his attention has been called to the appeal by the mayors of Plymouth, Sheffield, Norwich, Southampton, Portsmouth, Birkenhead, Swansea, Bootle, Wallasey, Exeter, Kingston-upon-Hull, Coventry, Salford and Bristol, urging the immediate passage this autumn of a Bill dealing with compulsory purchase of land by public bodies and the acceleration of procedure for entering into possession; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. Morrison: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir." In answer to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, I cannot at present add to the reply which I gave him on 22nd September.

Mr. Mander: Cannot my right hon. Friend make rather a bolder response to the appeal of these very influential cities and towns, and promise the introduction of legislation by the end of the year?

Mr. Morrison: I do not care to be pinned to dates which the future falsifies; but we are proceeding with legislation as fast as possible.

Viscountess Astor: If the Government cannot proceed faster, will they put in power somebody who will? We have waited two years now, and Plymouth is getting fed up.

Mr. Morrison: That does not rest with me.

Viscountess Astor: Well, can I ask the Prime Minister to do it?

Greater London

Mr. Hutchinson: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what progress has been made in the preparation of the regional plan for Greater London; and when it is anticipated that this plan will be made public?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Substantial progress has been made in the preparation of the regional plan to which my hon. and learned Friend refers. I hope to receive it during February next.

Mr. Hutchinson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it will not be easy to proceed with the planning either of the Greater London area or of the County of London area until this plan is made public?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware of that. There are two dangers. One is that the plan may be unduly delayed, and the other is that it may be founded on inadequate research work. I am informed by those who have to undertake the work that it has proved slower than was expected. Our object is to complete it, and to see that the plan is based on facts.

Mr. McEntee: What is the area of Greater London mentioned in the Question?

Mr. Morrison: I could not answer that accurately without notice, but I will inform the hon. Member of the area covered.

Mr. John Wilmot: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind the dangers arising in the Greater London area from the acquisition of land during the interim period for purposes which are not in conformity with this plan?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir; I am aware of that. But, of course, very little development can take place in the period with which we are concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — REQUISITIONED PROPERTY (COMPENSATION)

Mr. William Brown: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will direct requisitioning authorities so to interpret the recent ruling of the Treasury that requisitioning authorities may make allowances to owners for fair wear and tear; that they are on surrender to make such allowances, proportionate to the time of occupation, for outside painting and other usual outside maintenance of requisitioned properties, if such work has not been carried out by the requisitioning authority during the occupation in accordance with the authority's liability under Section 2 (1) (a) of the Compensation Defence Act, 1939.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): The ruling in question is to the effect that where the compensation under Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act has been strictly based upon the rent which might be expected to be paid by a tenant who was responsible for the repair of fair wear and tear, no deduction in respect of the cost of such repairs need be made when a claim for reinstatement under Section 2 (1) (b) is settled. Where the rent


has been fixed upon the contrary assumption and at a higher level, the point does not arise. I am advised that Departments are applying the ruling, and will continue to do so, with fairness, in relation to the differing circumstances of different cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (TRAINING)

Sir Alfred Beit: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps have been taken to implement the official announcement that it was intended to institute an inquiry into the training of the Civil Service and into the establishment of a Civil Service staff college; and whether any decisions have yet been reached?

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which were given to the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) on 16th March and 5th August.

Sir A. Beit: Do those replies agree-that a Civil Service staff college should be established?

Sir J. Anderson: The replies were concerned with the setting-up of a Committee, and that Committee, which has been considering the whole matter, is, I understand, about to consider its draft Report.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Might I ask the Prime Minister whether he would state the Business for the next series of Sittings?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): It will be necessary for the House to sit an additional day in the next series of Sittings. The Business will be as follows:
First Sitting Day—Concluding stages of the Wage-earners' Income Tax Bill and Second Reading of the Price Control (Regulation of Disposal of Stocks) Bill [Lords].
Second Sitting Day—Committee and remaining stages of the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Bill and of the Prolongation of Parliament Bill.
Third Sitting Day—Committee stage of a Supplementary Vote of Credit for War Expenditure. Afterwards the Adjournment will be moved, and a Debate will take place on the food situation in India.
Fourth Sitting Day—Committee stage of the Water Undertakings Bill [Lords], and further consideration of any outstanding Business.

Mr. Greenwood: Will the Prime Minister consider the possibility of having a discussion at a fairly early date on the financial discussions that have taken place in Washington? The House was informed a little time ago that before any commitments were made, or, at any rate, before any conclusions were reached, the matter could be debated in the House. In view of statements that have appeared in the public Press, I should like the Prime Minister to give the assurance again that such an opportunity will be provided as early as is practicable.

The Prime Minister: I am not sure what will be the convenient time, but obviously the House must be informed on the whole field of these complicated matters. We are not entirely masters of our own actions in the matter. Some of the publication must depend on the permission of other Governments, and we must feel our way. But the opportunities that the House has of raising all financial matters in the regular cycle of Parliamentary Business are so ample and so numerous that I cannot feel that there will not be an opportunity for raising any of these questions.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The late Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a specific pledge that before any final commitments were entered into by the Government this House would have an opportunity of discussing the matter and we just want to be reassured that that pledge has in no way gone by the board in view of the lamentable death of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and the accession to that important position of the present Chancellor.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend tells me that he has specifically renewed that pledge, and so it stands.

Mr. Shinwell: Might I ask a question which arises out of the Workmen's Compensation Bill Committee stage yesterday? No doubt the Prime Minister has been informed of the proceedings. He may have detected that some confusion existed in the minds of hon. Members regarding an alleged agreement reached by outside bodies, of which hon. Members were informed by the Home Secretary. This


affects the particular Amendment discussed yesterday, and I would ask the Prime Minister whether, before the Report stage, he will produce for the information of hon. Members the details of that agreement between the Trades Union Congress, the Employers' Confederation and the Home Secretary? We were advised yesterday that there had been such an agreement or understanding, and that to some extent Members were bound by it. It is not admitted, of course, that we were bound by such an agreement, but it did determine the course of the proceedings; and, in those circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman consider putting the details of such an agreement before the House?

The Prime Minister: I have always understood that it was one of the first duties of the Government and of Ministers in charge of particular Measures to do all they could to obtain outside agreements. Again and again we have been asked, and I have heard Ministers asked, "Why do you not try to settle this with the parties concerned?" But all discussions with these outside bodies are naturally private and informal. I understand there is no written document drawn up or anything like it. These conversations must go on, and they could never go on if there was always to be a report laid before the House. The House is master whenever a thing is brought before it. It can do whatever it thinks right and wise, but certainly I would always countenance, if not counsel, that it was an advantage for Ministers who hold office to authorise facilities for making good arrangements outside with other bodies.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that while it is appropriate that Ministers should enter into discussions with outside bodies, to which no exception can be taken—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot see that this has anything to do with the Business announced for the next series of Sittings. It is more suitable to a discussion which might take place on the Floor of the House on the Bill itself.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I am anxious to safeguard the position of hon. Members when we come to the Report stage and to ensure that, if we are to consider the matter in all its

bearings without any hindrance, we should have before us any agreement, if such an agreement exists, or be assured that no agreement exists.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has heard the answer of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Stokes: To return to the first matter raised by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), may I ask the Prime Minister, in order to set at rest fears which are exercising the minds of a great many Members, whether the reports in the Press of the statement made by Mr. Morgenthau in Cairo, that agreement has already been reached on post-war currency between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States, are entirely without foundation?

The Prime Minister: I have not myself seen the actual words attributed to Mr. Morgenthau and certainly I would not be prepared to state that any remarks that he made are entirely without foundation, for he is an extremely serious and responsible high official of the United States Government. But the facts are as I have said. The House will be given an opportunity of discussing the matter before any final decision or agreement is made. An agreement may either mean a bond or it may mean a meeting of minds on the subject.

Mr. Maxton: As the Committee stage of the Workmen's Compensation Bill was not completed last night because of some regrettable interchanges, may I, on the point raised by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is your view, as it was the view of the Home Secretary, that it is a discreditable thing and is not playing the game for Members of this House to try to improve on a deal that the Home Secretary had made with an outside body? May I put this further point—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is going far beyond the Business announced for the next series of Sittings.

Mr. Maxton: That, Sir, was only preliminary to asking the Prime Minister whether we can afford a week's delay, because obviously in the Business announced, the Committee stage of the Workmen's Compensation Bill has not been put down for the next series of Sittings. Are we to have it before the end of the Session?

The Prime Minister: We were led to believe that the Measure was an agreed Measure, and it was on that footing that it was introduced. However, individual Members who did not feel themselves bound to agree—I am not making any reproaches—created a certain liveliness on the matter. This is not at all unhealthy, but I must say that the Government's position was that the Bill was to be an agreed Bill, or largely an agreed Bill. We would like very much to carry it, because of the benefits it conveys, but if its future course were to be seriously prolonged or protracted by discussion, it might not be possible for us to persevere.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: With regard to the Committee stage of the Water Undertakings Bill, which the Prime Minister announced for the fourth Sitting Day, and in view of the volume and technical nature of the Amendments which have been put down, extending over seven or eight pages of the Order Paper, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider whether that Bill should not be committed to a Standing Committee of the House?

The Prime Minister: There are great difficulties in having Standing Committees during the war. The hours of sitting and the general wartime conditions have been such that we have had no Standing Committees during the war, and it would take, I think, very considerable reasons to justify us in making that departure from our wartime practice at the present moment.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Prime Minister now able to give any indication as to when an opportunity will be given for a discussion in this House of the United Nations Reconstruction Bank, final particulars of which reached the Treasury a week or so ago and about which I asked him last week?

The Prime Minister: I am not able to give any information on that at the present, moment.

Sir H. Williams: Further to the point on the proceedings for the fourth Sitting Day, is the Prime Minister aware that for weeks past there has been at least one Motion on the Order Paper asking that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee? The difficulty that exists

with regard to Standing Committees do not exist with respect to a Select Committee, and is a Select Committee not the most appropriate tribunal before which to send such a very technical Bill?

Earl Winterton: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is very considerable feeling on this matter in circles most favourable to the Government, and will he, not so much on this particular question as on the general question, assure us that it will receive his consideration? After all, it is a big departure from Parliamentary practice for four years to depart from what is an old-standing custom of the House.

The Prime Minister: I will gladly consider it.

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will seriously consider setting up once again the Scottish Grand Committee, in view of the fact that, if we had had it set up and it had been working yesterday, he would have got the Workmen's Compensation Bill through the Committee stage?

Mr. Speaker: That question is again far removed from the business of the next series of Sitting Days.

AGRICULTURAL PRICES AND POLICY

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The Government have reviewed the whole situation in regard to agricultural prices in the light of the undertakings given and all available information on the economic condition of the industry. When prices were last reviewed in February, 1942, to take account of the increase in the agricultural minimum wage to 60s. per week, Ministers told the leaders of National Farmers' Unions that it was the Government's view that on the occasion of each general review of prices it was permissible to consider the whole course of farmers' costs and receipts from 1940, when the system of fixed prices was first introduced, up to the time of the review. As I informed the House on 8th July, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), the Agricultural Wages Board, which includes representatives of both the farmers' and workers' unions, was informed in November, 1942, that the Government would not contemplate


an automatic general increase in prices to cover the cost of any increase in the national minimum wage.
The Government recognise, however, that with changing conditions certain disparities have developed between the returns received by different classes of producers and from different branches of production. The Government have always made it clear that they reserved the right to adjust the prices of particular commodities, up or down, according to the requirements of food production policy. The Government consider that the time has now come for a review to see whether some moderate change of emphasis is desirable and possible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I accordingly propose to discuss this question forthwith with the industry.
In addition, I am also able to announce that the War Cabinet have authorised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself to start discussions with representatives of the agricultural industry as to agricultural policy, both in the transitional period immediately after the end of hostilities and in the post-war period. These discussions will be of an exploratory character and confidential; and reports will be made from time to time to the War Cabinet on their progress.

Sir Joseph Lamb: May I express my appreciation and the appreciation of the industry for the announcement which the Minister of Agriculture has just made with regard to the question of consultation on future policy; and may I ask whether it is not a fact fiat that was really the request that was made by official agriculture and not one for a present announcement of policy at the moment?

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE

Thirteenth Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 122.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to enable traders to regulate the disposal of their stocks of certain descriptions of goods to which section nine of the Goods and Services (Price Control) Act. 1941, applies in accordance with licences issued by the Board of Trade with

a view to the efficient prosecution of the war and the maintenance of essential supplies."—Price Control (Regulation of Disposal of Stocks) Bill [Lords].

PRICE CONTROL (REGULATION OF DIS POSAL OF STOCIS) BILL [Lords]

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — REGENCY BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

HOUSE OF COMMONS REBUILDING

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I beg to move,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon plans for the rebuilding of the House of Commons and upon such alterations as may be considered desirable while preserving all its essential features.
On the night of 10th May, 1941, with one of the last bombs of the last serious raid, our House of Commons was destroyed by the violence of the enemy, and we have now to consider whether we should build it up again, and how, and when. We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us. Having dwelt and served for more than 40 years in the late Chamber, and having derived fiery great pleasure and advantage therefrom, I, naturally, would like to see it restored in all essentials to its old form, convenience and dignity. I believe that will be the opinion of the great majority of its Members. It is certainly the opinion of His Majesty's Government and we propose to support this resolution to the best of our ability.
There are two main characteristics of the House of Commons which will command the approval and the support of reflective and experienced Members. They will, I have no doubt, sound odd to foreign ears. The first is that its shape should be oblong and not semi-circular. Here is a very potent factor in our political life. The semi-circular assembly, which appeals to political theorists, enables every individual or every group to move round the centre, adopting various shades of pink according as the weather changes. I am a convinced supporter of the party system in preference to the group system. I have sewn many earnest and ardent Parliaments destroyed by the group system. The party system is much favoured by the oblong form of Chamber. It is easy for an individual to move through those insensible gradations from Left to Right but the act of crossing the Floor is one

which requires serious consideration. I am well informed on this matter, for I have accomplished that difficult process, not only once but twice. Logic is a poor guide compared with custom. Logic which has created in so many countries semi-circular assemblies which have buildings which give to every Member, not only a seat to sit in but often a desk to write at, with a lid to bang, has proved fatal to Parliamentary Government as we know it here in its home and in the land of its birth.
The second characteristic of a Chamber formed on the lines of the House of Commons is that it should not be big enough to contain all its Members at once without over-crowding and that there should be no question of every Member having a separate seat reserved for him. The reason for this has long been a puzzle to uninstructed outsiders and has frequently excited the curiosity and even the criticism of new Members. Yet it is not so difficult to understand if you look at it from a practical point of view. If the House is big enough to contain all its Members, nine-tenths of its Debates will be conducted in the depressing atmosphere of an almost empty or half-empty Chamber. The essence of good House of Commons speaking is the conversational style, the facility for quick, informal interruptions and interchanges. Harangues from a rostrum would be a bad substitute for the conversational style in which so much of our business is done. But the conversational style requires a fairly small space, and there should be on great occasions a sense of crowd and urgency. There should be a sense of the importance of much that is said and a sense that great matters are being decided, there and then, by the House.
We attach immense importance to the survival of Parliamentary democracy. In this country this is one of our war aims. We wish to see our Parliament a strong, easy, flexible instrument of free Debate. For this purpose a small Chamber and a sense of intimacy are indispensable. It is notable that the Parliaments of the British Commonwealth have to a very large extent reproduced our Parliamentary institutions in their form as well as in their spirit, even to the Chair in which the Speakers of the different Assemblies sit. We do not seek to impose our ideas on others; we make no invidious criticisms of other nations. All the same we hold, none the less,


tenaciously to them ourselves. The vitality and the authority of the House of Commons and its hold upon an electorate, based upon universal suffrage, depends to no small extent upon its episodes and great moments, even upon its scenes and rows, which, as everyone will agree, are better conducted at close quarters. Destroy that hold which Parliament has upon the public mind and has preserved through all these changing, turbulent times and the living organism of the House of Commons would be greatly impaired. You may have a machine, but the House of. Commons is much more than a machine; it has earned and captured and held through long generations the imagination and respect of the British nation. It is not free from shortcomings; they mark all human institutions. Nevertheless, I submit to what is probably not an unfriendly audience on that subject that our House has proved itself capable of adapting itself to every change which the swift pace of modern life has brought upon us. It has a collective personality which enjoys the regard of the public and which imposes itself upon the conduct not only of individual Members but of parties. It has a code of its own which everyone knows, and it has means of its own of enforcing those manners and habits which have grown up and have been found to be an essential part of our Parliamentary life.
The House of Commons has lifted our affairs above the mechanical sphere into the human sphere. It thrives on criticism, it is perfectly impervious to newspaper abuse or taunts from any quarter, and it is capable of digesting almost anything or almost any body of gentlemen, whatever be the views with which they arrive. There is no situation to which it cannot address itself with vigour and ingenuity. It is the citadel of British liberty; it is the foundation of our laws; its traditions and its privileges are as lively to-day as when it broke the arbitrary power of the Crown and substituted that Constitutional Monarchy under which we have enjoyed so many blessings. In this war the House of Commons has proved itself to be a rock upon which an Administration, without losing the confidence of the House, has been able to confront the most terrible emergencies. The House has shown itself able to face the possibility of national destruction with classical composure. It can change Governments,

and has changed them by heat of passion. It can sustain Governments in long, adverse, disappointing struggles through many dark, grey months and even years until the sun comes out again. I do not know how else this country can be governed other than by the House of Commons playing its part in all its broad freedom in British public life. We have learned—with these so recently confirmed facts around us and before us—not to alter improvidently the physical structures which have enabled so remarkable an organism to carry on its work of banning dictatorships within this island and pursuing and beating into ruin all dictators who have molested us from outside.

Mr. Tinker: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me—

The Prime Minister: I think I might be allowed to proceed. I shall not be very long, and then perhaps my hon. Friend can make his own speech. His Majesty's Government are most anxious and are indeed resolved to ask the House to adhere firmly in principle to the structure and characteristics of the House of Commons we have known, and I do not doubt that that is the wish of the great majority of the Members in this the second longest Parliament of our history. If challenged, we must take issue upon that by the customary Parliamentary method of Debate followed by a Division. The question of Divisions again relates very directly to the structure of the House of Commons. We must look forward to periods when Divisions will be much more frequent than they are now. Many of us have seen 20 or 30 in a single Parliamentary Sitting, and in the Lobbies of the Chamber which Hitler shattered we had facilities and conveniences far exceeding those which we are able to enjoy in this lordly abode. I am, therefore, proposing in the name of His Majesty's Government that we decide to rebuild the House of Commons on its old foundations, which are intact, and in principle within its old dimensions, and that we utilise so far as possible its shattered walls. That is also the most cheap and expeditious method we could pursue to provide ourselves with a habitation.
I now come to some of the more practical issues which are involved. It is said that we should wait until the end of the


war, and I think perhaps that was the point my hon. Friend opposite wished to put. Certainly we must do nothing which appreciably detracts from the war effort, but what we have to do in the first instance is to make up our minds and have a plan and have the preliminary work and survey effectively done, so that at the end of the war, if not earlier, we can start without delay and build ourselves a House again. All this will be a matter for the Committee, which will certainly have more than 15 Members of the House, representative of the different parties and different points of view. I am, however, not entirely convinced that it may not be found possible to make definite progress with this work even during the course of the war. The First Commissioner of Works has submitted a scheme which would enable the old House of Commons to be reconstructed with certain desirable improvements-and modernisations affecting the ventilation, lavatories, accommodation for the Press, the ladies' gallery and other prominent features. This scheme would take only 18 months, but it would be prudent—and those concerned with building houses would, I think, feel that it would be prudent—to count on double that period, because everything must be fitted in with war needs and also because it is the habit of architects and builders usually to be more sanguine when putting forward their plans than is subsequently found to be justified by the actual facts. The last House of Commons, the one which was set up after the fire in 1834, was promised in six years and actually took 27 years—

Mr. Maxton: We had not a bricklayer Prime Minister then.

The Prime Minister: —and so, when I speak of rebuilding the House of Commons in 18 months, it is, of course, without panelling or carving, which can be added as the years pass by. It is simply a Chamber for us to dwell in and conduct our Business as we require to do. The timber must be set aside now if it is to be properly seasoned. The Clipsham Quarry, from which the stone was procured for the maintenance and replacement of the Houses of Parliament, is temporarily closed. It would have to be reopened. We must then consider very carefully the strain upon our labour

resources. The First Commissioner informs me that for the first six months after the plan has been started, after the word "Go" has been given, only 46 quarrymen and demolition men would be required, of which half would be over 40 years of age and the other half over 50 years of age. In the second six months 185 men would be required over 40 and an equal number over 50. But of those over 50 years of age 60 would be masons, whose trade has so little work at the present time. In the third six months—and we shall be getting on by then—we shall require 170 men, not additional, over 40 and an equal number over 50. All the 170 over 50 would come from the building trade; the 170 over 40 and under 50 would come from the engineering trade. This last is a much more serious consideration. But there is no need for us, even when the whole scheme is approved and the work has begun, to commit ourselves to the rate of reconstruction. We can fit it in as a stand-by job. It might well be that in a year's time, when we require men from the engineering trade, our affairs might be in such a posture that we should be looking for jobs rather than for men.
However, the House is not asked to commit itself to any decisions of this kind. On the contrary, the Committee has first of all to make its decisions of principle and then the execution of these decisions must be a matter for the Government to carry out as and when the public interest requires and strictly within the limits of the war effort. All the same, I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it would be a real danger if at the end of the war we find ourselves separated by a long period from the possibility of obtaining a restored and suitable House of Commons Chamber. We are building warships that will not be finished for many years ahead, and various works of construction are going forward for war purposes. But I am bound to say that I rank the House of Commons—the most powerful Assembly in the whole world—at least as important as a fortification or a battleship, even in time of war. Politics may be very fierce and violent in the after-war days. We may have all the changes in personnel following upon a General Election. We shall certainly lave an immense press of Business and, very likely, of stormy controversy. We must have a good, well-tried and convenient place


in which to do our work. The House owes it to itself, it owes it to the nation, to make sure that there is no gap, no awkward, injurious hiatus in the continuity of our Parliamentary life. I am to-day only expressing the views of the Government, but if the House sets up the Committee and in a few months' time the Committee give us their Report, we shall be able to take decisions together on the whole matter, and not be caught at a disadvantage in what must inevitably be a time of particular stress and crisis at the end of the war, from a Parliamentary point of view. Therefore, I ask that the Committee should be set up, and I feel sure that it will be able to make a good plan of action leaving the necessary latitude to the Government as to the time when this action can be taken and the speed at which it can be carried into effect having regard to the prime exigencies of the war.
We owe a great debt to the House of Lords for having placed at our disposal this spacious, splendid hall. We have already expressed in formal Resolution our thanks to them. We do not wish to outstay our welcome. We have been greatly convenienced by our sojourn on these red benches and under this gilded, ornamented, statue-bedecked roof. I express my gratitude and appreciation of what we have received and enjoyed, but
Mid pleasures and palaces though we may roam,
Be it ever so humble, there's no place like home.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I am sure the House has enjoyed the Prime Minister's speech fully as much as he obviously enjoyed making it. It was the Prime Minister in the genial mood in which some of us prefer to see him. This is not a party question. It is a question that affects all of us. I remember that Sunday morning. I was the first member of the Government to see the blazing Chamber. I found it very difficult to express my feelings at that time. I felt a sense of personal loss, which I knew would be shared by all Members of the House, and, I am bound to say, an intensified sense of bitterness against the author of the damage. I am not by nature a conservative, though some of my friends think I am, but on these matters conservatism shows itself at its best. I should myself have felt most unhappy if we had had to live for long in what we called the

annexe, We were grateful for the habitation at the time, but one felt that it was not a Chamber consonant with the dignity of this House. It looked rather like an attempt at cheap fiction.
I think myself the Government are right in trying as far as possible, and having regard to efficiency, to restore the old Chamber. At the same time I feel that there are improvements which could obviously be made in all kinds of ways. I believe that our Assembly after the war will be a focus for people from all parts of the world. I am certain that the great newspapers of the world will come to be more strongly represented in our Chamber, in the Press Galleries, and, if we could somehow or another improve the ventilation, which I have always heard defended, though I never met any Member of the House who thought it was any good, that would be to the good. It we could modernise the building, in as far as we can, without in any way altering its historical character, if we could make further provision for the public and for the Press—I admit that is difficult—I think that would be all to the good. I think the Select Committee ought to get to work fairly quickly. I share the Prime Minister's view that a long hiatus, gradually outstaying our welcome, would be losing something of the spirit of the old place, which will go in time unless we get back, would be a national loss and a loss to the Chamber, and I hope, therefore, the House will accept the Motion and that the Select Committee will be appointed, and then, I think, will be the time to talk at greater length on the proposals put before us.

Mr. Maxton: May I ask you, Sir, whether you are proposing to call any of the Amendments on the Paper?

Mr. Speaker: I did not propose to call any of these Amendments.

Mr. Maxton: I regret that very much. The Prime Minister knows that I am not hostile to the proposal that a Select Committee should be set up to consider the matter. I think he is also aware that I had very great fondness for the other Chamber. I have the same sort of nostalgia as he expressed it in his well-chosen peroration. I think he is giving his Select Committee much too narrow a mandate, I do not know whom he is proposing to put


on it, whether he is thinking in terms of putting on senior Members of the House, who are past the age of thinking in terms of looking forward, or whether he is thinking of the young men who are going to lead the country in the future, but I should like him to think in terms of an entire change. I think the Chamber as it is now should be preserved as a historic monument, as a reminder to men for all time of the period that we have gone through. I think we should think of growing into a new type of world after this war, and I think we should think in terms of starting in different surroundings to make plans and preparations for the new world. After all, the great things about the British Parliamentary system did not grow up in the last 104 or 105 years during which that Chamber has existed. The Chamber across the corridor has not any great record of antiquity behind it. It was not built in one of the finest periods of British history. There is in the Forest of Dean an ancient building which has as fine a record in the development of the Parliamentary system of this country as had the Chamber over the way. There are one or two buildings in Edinburgh which are now just historic monuments which played some considerable part in the constitutional development of the present Parliamentary system. There are places where mud huts used to stand, where wise men used to meet for their deliberations.
The Prime Minister is straining it too far when he tries to make out that the essence of the Parliamentary system depends on the continuation of these somewhat cramped premises built about 104 years ago. I think world politics are going to be of more importance in the post-war period than ever before, and we should think in terms of going away from this site altogether. The Prime Minister has reminded us that we are strangers in this part of the premises, but even at the other end we were only the tenants of furnished apartments and were there not on sufferance but by the good will of the owner. I should like to see premises built on a fine site, in good English parkland, as near to London as the kind of land can be got—some 20 miles out, I should say, is not an impossible distance—and there I would erect the finest building that British architecture

can devise. I would create it for the purpose that we have in mind—Britain playing a primary part in world politics. I would have regard to the fact that we hope and expect to be in day-to-day touch not merely with the Parliaments of the Dominions but with the Parliaments of other countries. I would have a railway station especially in those grounds, I would have a fine car park, I would have an aerodrome, I would have everything done on the finest and biggest scale, a place to which the nations of the world knew they had to come to discuss the problems that interest them and interest us, and with every convenience on the spot both for receiving them in hospitable fashion and enabling them to carry on work in an effective way on their arrival.
I only sketch those conceptions in the very broadest outline. I think the Prime Minister should not prejudge and prevent a wider consideration of the scheme. He has the appointment of the Select Committe in his hands. He can put on it all the old deadheads of the House if he pleases. But give them a mandate that is really worthy of a Select Committee of this Hour, because what he is asking them to do is not work for a Select Committee. It is work for a foreman engineer. Let him give the Select Committee something to think of, to consider alternative proposals and to consider that we hope we are moving into a different kind of world from that which we have lived in in the past, in which these limited premises were completely inadequate and would be quite unsuitable to the probable development of world politics.
Let me say this other thing. I think the right hon. Gentleman will remember that I took an active part with himself in getting us these premises. I was anxious that during this war period we should remain in this building. I thought it would have been a bad thing from every point of view if we had left these premises permanently during the war, and I was glad that this temporary arrangement could be made within the great Palace of Westminster. But in coming back here I was fully conscious, because I am not a hero like the majority of Members of this House, that this place was of no use to me as giving adequate protection. I was very glad indeed that


we had a gas proof shelter underneath. I thought that was fine, particularly when there was no gas, but I was also conscious that this place did not afford to me the sort of protection I should have liked to have; and when the Prime Minister encouraged me by saying that we were sitting on the target I did not feel any better. But I came, none the less, because I felt it was right and proper that we should be in these premises. I see there are some people talking about the possibility of another war after this one. There is in that at least this bit of hope—it suggests that this one is going to end; but as intelligent men we have to count on the possibility that this war may not be the last war, and I feel that the Select Committee should consider housing Parliament in premises where there would be some greater protection for the House of Commons and the Noble Lords when they are carrying on their labours.

The Prime Minister: There are always the Admiralty Buildings.

Mr. Maxton: The right hon. Gentleman must remember that while he has access to all the various Government premises round about Whitehall the rest of us have just got to be content with this place.

The Prime Minister: I meant for the Houses.

Mr. Maxton: I do not want to go underground with the House of Commons. I do not want to get down into a hole to do my work. I think there is some reasonable medium between a decently-constructed modern building and this somewhat inadequate place where we are now. I do not want to argue the details now, but I urge the Prime Minister to extend the terms of reference to the Select Committee so that they can have regard to all those considerations which I have put forward and many others that can arise in the minds of other hon. Members. I do not want to have a Division on this matter, because it is not a matter that we should divide about, but one on which we should try to arrive at a harmonious and common understanding, and I am certain the Motion before us is not big enough to allow proper consideration to be given to this subject.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: There are one or two remarks which I should

like to make on this matter. First, I cordially agree with what the Prime Minister said about the homeliness of the House of Commons and the conversational method of conducting our affairs. We have just had an example of it in the conversation between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Independent Labour Party. Modern ideas of bell pushes, desks, inkpots and so on would certainly destroy the personal touch which we all enjoy and which I was long enough in the old House of Commons to enjoy to the full. We could not fail to agree with what is in the mind of the Leader of the Independent Labour Party, his dream of some magnificent building away from London, but although we must feel sympathy with what he had to say, I do not think it is relevant to the rebuilding of our House of Commons. But it is a fact that ever since I have had anything to do with politics I have realised that we as a great country have no building which is at all worthy of the greatness of the Empire and of this country in which to entertain people from overseas, from Europe and so on. I remember Sir Austen Chamberlain saying to me that he thought it was a tragedy that a great conference and party which were to be held in London had to meet in one of London's picture galleries, Burlington House, and on many other occasions conferences have had to meet in buildings not any more suitable than Burlington House. The whole of that side of the matter is not relevant to the question of a new House of Commons, but it is a subject which, I submit, ought to be carefully debated one day, so that some fine building worthy of the greatness of this country and the Empire may be erected.
There is one last word I have to say. Most hon. Members realise that we very nearly lost this House. They have only to look above their heads to see the wound that was made in the roof and to pull up the carpet which is in front of us to see the wound in the Floor. So we nearly lost two Houses. Coming from the other House into this, one cannot fail to notice the difficulty of the acoustics here. I speak as an unfortunate individual who lost the mechanical part of his left ear in an accident some years ago, with the result that I feel that the acoustics here might be very much improved. Whatever the Committee do, I trust they will realise that in the old


House of Commons all those Members who wished to be heard and made certain of being heard could be heard, but a great many speakers in the House of Commons do not really enunciate properly and make perfectly certain that everything they are saying shall be heard by everybody. It is right that everybody who is in the House when a Member is speaking should be able to hear him—I am not speaking of the incurably deaf, but of the ordinary individual who is not deaf. Hon. Members both on the other side and this side of the House must recall times when they have sat behind Ministers and others making most important speeches when they have not been able to hear. Over and over again in this House and in the other we have heard the remark "Would you kindly speak up?"

Viscountess Astor: No, "Speak up"—not kindly.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Sometimes it is said rather roughly. I press that particular point because without having any real technical knowledge of acoustics I think it should be easy to make the building as perfect as possible by scientific methods, and I ask the Committee to call in the best technical knowledge they can command to make as certain as possible that everybody shall be able to hear everything, whether it is good or bad. Finally, I want to express the love, which I share with all Members of the House of Commons, for our old home, and to look forward to a new one being set up at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I should like to say just three things, largely following what the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said. I am afraid that what he said, although it might have been a useful contribution if the whole or the major portion of these buildings had been destroyed, hardly fills the bill when we realise that most of the Palace has been saved. It seems to me that the speech of the Prime Minister was based upon that fact. It is pleasant to be in so spacious a Chamber as this, but I am positive that, in spite of the red benches, most of us would prefer to be back in our own home. For two very obvious reasons. The whole centre of gravity of this place is round about the old Chamber, and although I have not worked it out, and

do not propose to do so, I think it could be easily demonstrated that the loss of time to Ministers and to Members in coming to this end of the Palace amounts to an appreciable number of hours in the course of a year. The second reason why this Chamber, though so useful as a stop gap, is not the kind of place we should put up with for longer than is necessary, is that the public galleries are very inadequate. People who sit in the public galleries can see very little of what goes on. It is the essence of democracy that the public should have admission to our Debates, but for the vast majority of visitors it must be a very uncomfortable experience to sit in the galleries hearing voices but not knowing who is speaking. Therefore, the sooner we do get back into a reconstructed Chamber the better it will be both for Members and for those who come to listen to our Debates.
Those of us who know the surroundings of the old Chamber know very well that it is possible to increase certain of the amenities while keeping within the main walls, which still stand, and I think the Motion moved by the Prime Minister is based on that assumption and adequately covers the ground in the light of the obvious fact that it would take many years to build elsewhere and to transplant Parliament to parkland, somewhere out in Buckinghamshire or wherever the place is the hon. Member for Bridgeton has in mind. It is best that we should build on what we have got left, with all its surrounding associations. We can there, even in the limited space at our disposal, get most of the amenities we desire, both for Members and for the public who come to listen to our Debates, in the shortest space of time.

Viscountess Astor: I listened with deep interest to the Prime Minister's speech, and, like the Prime Minister, I should like to get back to the old House. Naturally people of a certain age hate changing houses and hate changing customs. But I do feel the Prime Minister is thinking backwards instead of forwards. We may need to get into premises on this site at once, but I am certain that he has missed something. He is thinking of what we have been used to; he thinks the world is going on as before. I do not think that at all. I believe that just as the houses in which we live are changing so public places will have to


change, and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was right in saying that the terms of reference to the Committee should be enlarged. The Prime Minister has always looked backwards, more or less. All historians have to look backwards, or they would not be historians, but the time has come when the House of Commons has to look forward. When we talk about our intimacy and all the comforts we have had in the old House, which nobody enjoyed more than I did, I hate to think there is a fear that they may not come back, but I do not believe things are going to be the same. I do not believe there is going to be this brave new world which everyone is talking about. Where are the brave new people? You cannot build a different world until you have different people. I do not believe that people have changed so much. I do not believe that my children are a bit better than I am. I know what public life is. When we talk of things which are going to get better all of a sudden when the war is stopped, I do not believe it, but I do believe that there is a more reasonable time coming. We can see it now among the people who have been in this war.
I believe that we shall emerge out of this fight into a more reasonable age. It may be better to have a circular House. I have often felt that it might be better if Ministers and ex-Ministers did not have to sit and look at each other, almost like dogs on a leash, and that controversy would not be so violent. I do not think there is any merit in violent controversies, and I do not believe that the fights in the House of Commons helped democracy. This House looks quite different from outside from what it does inside. We think it is all very well to have long speeches about nothing and try to put Ministers on the mat, but the people in the country do not see it that way. The people who sit here making rows do not see it as the people see it; they are having a good time making them. I am certain that the Prime Minister is not in touch with the world that is coming, if he thinks that we ought to build a House of Commons exactly like the one we had. I am certain that he is wrong, and I hope that he will broaden the terms of reference. I hope that Members of the House of Commons, especially the younger Members, will press their views upon the Prime Minister. I would prefer to go back to

the old House that has been our life for the last 25 years, but I hope and pray that it will not be the life in the future, and I beg the Prime Minister to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Tinker: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
consideration of plans for the rebuilding of the House of Commons be deferred until the end of the war.
I think I am the odd man out, because I am opposing the whole of the Prime Minister's Motion. I believe that the time is not opportune to deal with the matter while the country is in such a terrible state. What will be the message to the people? That the House of Commons is discussing what appears to be an academic thing when very much more important matters wait to be dealt with. Anybody witnessing such a Debate would think that Members of tire House of Commons do not have regard to the welfare of the people of the country but only to themselves, in getting ready some place to go to.
Are we badly housed here? Is anything wrong with this place at the present time? Are we not able to carry on our business? If anybody can prove that we are not, I will say, "Get another place. We had better prepare some kind of a mansion for ourselves where we can be more at home than we have been." I think that the Prime Minister to-day was missing the point. He was speaking about the old associations and what the House of Commons meant. We all know about that, and no one opposes that kind of thing. I am only opposing the waste of time in trying to get something ready, when there is no immediate need for it. It may be said that it is only a proposal that a Select Committee should examine the matter, but I understand that the Select Committee would be getting ready to do something. The Prime Minister said that if the Select Committee determined upon certain aspects, we should start to put its recommendations into operation.
What will be the feeling of people who have been bombed out of their houses when men and materials cannot be found to put those houses right? Their humble dwellings have been bombed, yet we are told we cannot put things right because


the materials are wanted for more important things. Those people will ask themselves what has happened to Members of the House of Commons. They will say, "Are they hiding themselves behind the Parliament Act twelvemonth after twelvemonth, and in the interval trying to build better premises for themselves?" That is how it will seem to people outside, and how it seemed to me when I went to my constituency and saw how people are housed. I am constantly assailed by young couples who are trying to get housing accommodation and when I appeal to the town council they tell me that they are not allowed to build. Those people have a real grievance. Though the rebuilding of the House of Commons may be only a small matter, yet it means that materials and labour will have to be taken. In life it is not only the thing which takes place, but the image that is created in the minds of men, that makes the most impression. I have described the image that will be created in the people's mind as to what we are doing on this occasion. The House of Commons and the Prime Minister are ill advised. I understand it is just the Prime Minister's wish that this should go on, but we could spend our time much better than in deliberating upon this matter.
It has been said that it was a bad thing for the nation when the House of Commons was demolished. Was it bad? To my mind it was one of the best things that could have happened to our nation. One idea that has gone about is that no harm comes to the heads of States who are fighting because they protect each other. I have heard it said that the House of Commons would never be bombed because certain buildings in Germany would not be bombed. Hitler did a great service to this country when he smashed the House of Commons, in the sense that he let the country know that nobody in the country was immune from Hitler's vengeance. The same with Buckingham Palace. I would rather let the House of Commons remain as a living manifesto until the end of the war of what Hitler tried to do with the House of Commons. We should be serving the nation best if we said that now is not the time and that some other time at the end of the war will be the time to get ready for it. Will anything go wrong? Will business be quickened or lessened by the rebuilding

of the House of Commons? I do not see that it can be. If we had not a place to go to I could understand it.
Some reference was made by the Prime Minister to the other place being very kind to allow us this place and to our not being tenants too long because they want the place back. I have been in that recess where they are, and it is a nice homely little place, just big enough for the persons who attend. I have never heard any complaints from Members of the House of Lords that they want to get back. I think they want to stop there, because it is more company for them sometimes. During Debates in the past, I have looked down upon this Chamber when there have been present about half a dozen Members, who seemed to be lost in the place. In the little place where they are they make a family party and they enjoy themselves. I do not dislike this place. It is a really nice place and comfortable, and the hearing facilities have now been made very good. I sat in the Gallery one day and listened to one of my hon. Friends speaking, and his voice came out splendidly. There is no difficulty in this House about hearing. What is the position? Are we short of something to do? Have we nothing to talk about? Last night we adjourned the Debate on the Workmen's Compensation Bill because we had not time to go through it. It is a far more important matter than rebuilding the House of Commons. Time might very well be spent to-day in getting that Bill through. We are wasting time on a pleasant Thursday—not Sunday—in doing something which is not material.
I have as much respect for the old building as anyone. I loved the place, but there are greater issues now. I do not want the country to get the idea that the war is over because we are getting ready to build a place for ourselves again. That is going to be the impression on people, that the war is at an end. "How do you know?" someone will ask. The answer will be: "Because Members of the House of Commons are rebuilding their place and taking labour for it. It must be near the end." That is the impression that would be conveyed to my mind, and may be conveyed to other people. I have no disrespect for the Prime Minister or his feelings in this matter, or for the old Chamber; not at all. I am a great believer in the Houses of Parliament


and their functions, for what they have done, but at a time like this we can very well afford to wait until the end of the war, when we can take the matter up and review it in the light of a new world and decide whether it should be outside the old spot and the old associations. All those matters can be considered at the end of the war, but it is wrong to consider them during the stress of war.

Major Petheriek: We have just seen an example of the proper working of the Parliamentary system. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) happens to be the only Member of this House who definitely holds the view that no action should be taken until the end of the war. He had the courage to put down an Amendment, and even though he got no support he has moved his Amendment in the House of Commons. It seems to me that every Member should be willing to do the same, and even if he is the only one who holds a strong view on any given subject, he should be willing to stand up in the House and say so.
I cannot agree with the views that the hon Member has put forward. I think it is necessary now to make plans and to have them all ready so that the rebuilding can take place at the earliest possible moment, but if the use of labour and materials interferes in any way with the prosecution of the war, we should not start till the war is over. But that is, I think, a matter which can reasonably be left to the Government to decide.
With regard to the suggestions of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who not for the first time has appeared in the role of genial Jacobin and asked that we should have a sort of Potters Bar Canberra 20 miles from London, attractive as that may sound, I do not think it would work, quite apart from the traditions which we should lose by such an action. It would be 20, 25, 30 or 40 miles from Whitehall. There would be endless difficulties of transport, and can you imagine a Minister having to spend the morning in his Government Department and then having to rush down to the new place, perhaps 30 miles away, losing half an hour or more in order to get to the House to answer Questions? Quite apart from that, I think that Westminster is the place for the House to remain. It is true that in the past the House of Commons

has been moved from Westminster. On one occasion at least it moved to Oxford. Speaking as a Royalist and as a Cambridge man, I should have found it difficult at that time to approve the move. But for centuries now Parliament has been known to sit in Westminster, and a great tradition of Parliament has grown up within these walls.
There are two points I should like to make, two suggestions, to the Select Committee which I imagine will be set up. The first is that I hope that in the plans for rebuilding, the architectural plans at least, every effort will be made to conform to the existing architecture from the outside. Perhaps one of the greatest architectural monuments in this country—I refer to the great court of Trinity College in Cambridge—has one eyesore. Oddly enough, it ought to be quite a good eyesore. Architecturally seven-eighths of that court conforms, but there is a perfectly square Queen Anne house in the corner that looks wrong. I hope every effort will be made to conform to the architecture of the Houses of Parliament as they were previously and as they are now in the main, even though the House of Commons has gone. The second point is that I think there is one amenity which the House of Commons has very gravely lacked in the past and that is private rooms in which Members could work and keep their papers. It is very difficult, when the ordinary Member lives perhaps half-an-hour or three-quarters of an hour away while the House is sitting, for him to attend to his work properly, and he comes up in the morning, perhaps bringing his papers. Something arises in the course of Debate, and he finds that he cannot get the paper he wants because he has left it at home. In addition, it would be a very great advantage if it were possible for Members to receive guests in a private room. Often constituents come with troubles and wish to express them privately.

Mr. Maxton: I did not go into details like that. Can the hon. and gallant Member tell me how he is going to fit those two items into the scheme which the Motion contains?

Major Petheriek: I do not know. I am not an architect, but I wonder whether it is possible to build upwards on the existing site. At any rate there is a space


quite close which is available, or could be made available, in Westminster which we could use for that purpose. I will not insist on that point any longer. We should need a number of small studies in addition. At present it is only, as it were, the prefects who have the rooms, not the small boys. The result is that the work of Parliament is not carried on quite as well as it would be if we had the amenities I have suggested. It is perhaps a pity that the Motion has been drafted a little too narrowly. Nevertheless, I think that if the Motion is interpreted by the Committee in a sensible way, it will be possible to take into consideration all those considerations which should be examined in the course of their sittings.

Mr. Butcher: I think the House is under a great debt to the Prime Minister for the delightful way in which he introduced this question of building the Chamber. I feel that his proposal that the old form should be preserved has received a very substantial measure of agreement. I am not going to trespass on the time of the House except to say one or two things with regard to the access and comfort of those who are witnesses of our toils. They can, in the main, be divided into two classes. The first consists of constituents and citizens, and they should here have free access and every comfort, but, on the other hand, the number of seats available should not be so large that the House becomes a place of casual resort and where to spend a quarter of an hour sheltering on a rainy day. On the other hand, the Press of this country and of the Dominions and the foreign Press should have greater facilities than are available for them at the present time. Here is the greatest Assembly in the world at work, and the Press is entitled to every assistance in recording and supporting our efforts. It may be that room for this increased accommodation could be found in place of those unused and rather gloomy retiring rooms behind the side galleries of the old House of Commons.
I think that the Select Committee might consider the desirability of proceeding in two stages, first the stage of setting up the main structure, temporary in its furnishings but equipped, as the Prime Minister has said, for its task of helping,

controlling, governing and legislating for this people in the days to come. I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who always speaks with such sincerity. Surely anybody is entitled to reasonable equipment to enable him to perform his job. At the present time arrangements are being made to go ahead with new garages for fire-engines so that they can be more efficient on the day on which they are wanted. Surely, if the pumps for static water are entitled to protection, the springs of eloquence are also entitled to a home. The furnishings in this new Chamber are perhaps a matter on which there should be no urgency at all. Mr. Speaker, it may be that the Chair which you occupy may for some time continue to serve you but replicas of the chair destroyed in the old Chamber are available in some Parliaments of the Dominions and I can conceive it possible that some of those Dominions might think it a courtesy and a tribute to this House to return a replica of the old chair. The furnishings would require deeper consideration as to their nature and character. I think we are right in considering this Motion at the present time. This, I believe, is evidence of the new urge which the Government is developing at the present time. First we had, just after Questions, immediately before this Business, a proposal that the Minister of Agriculture might enter into consultative arrangements. Here we have a Motion to establish a Select Committee. The War Cabinet is now seized with the urgency of bringing forward plans. For its intrinsic merits and also because I believe it to be some Measure of the other plans to be brought forward I support this Motion.

Mr. Hannah: I wish first to agree very cordially with the chorus of praise that has been raised in this House for the Prime Minister's speech. I think we all feel that he was at his very best, and most of us were agreed with his general view. I am very glad he did not strain our loyalty by talking about an exact replica of the House of Commons which was recently destroyed. It always seemed to me that in this great building it came rather as an anti-climax to enter through the noblest hall which the Middle Ages have handed down to this generation in any part of Europe, with the finest timber roof in the entire world, then to go


through the rather well rebuilt St. Stephen's Chapel, with its fine vaulted roof carrying on to a great extent the tradition of its great medieval predecessor, then to enter the splendid Central Lobby, a modification of the octagon of Ely Cathedral, and finally to pass into the House of Commons. You were rather reminded, I think, of an ordinary Methodist chapel. It was not up to the standard of the building as a whole. I do not in the least want to gibe at the Methodists. In fact I shall be taking one of their services next Sunday, but in my most expansive mood I have never congratulated my Methodist friends on having made any very marked or striking contribution to the architecture of the Christian Church.
I do not think that when the Germans destroyed the House of Commons as it was, they did very much harm to the reputation of Barrie, or Pugin, who suggested to him so very much of the details of this fabric, and I cannot but feel that while we desire to restore the House of Commons as it was in all essential features, it might be improved upon to a very considerable extent. I do not think that we should pretend it was never destroyed and try to build one which might have been the original Chamber of this Palace.
I hope we can manage to a very great extent to preserve permanently the calcined stone lobby of the House of Commons. It is rather effective at the present time with its timber supports, reminding one rather of a Cairo mosque, but, of course, we cannot keep it just as it is. I would, however, hope that some parts of the old stone work in its present condition might be permanently preserved. I cannot agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Major Petherick) that the kitchen block in the classical style in the Great Court of Trinity College at Cambridge hurts in any way that splendid work. I think it looks exceedingly well and gives just the variety that is required, but if you enter the Chapel with its old Tudor exterior, mostly built in the reign of Elizabeth, you will find one of the finest chambers in this world, with the splendid screen, panelling, stalls and baldachino in the classic style that were mainly the work of the much discussed Dr. Bentley, an early eighteenth

century Master. I cannot help thinking that we should keep our minds open, and not necessarily open at the bottom, to the idea of having a new chamber in the classic style. It might be made admirably to harmonise with the rest of this building. I do not think there is any fabric in the entire world that could be taken as an exact model, but nevertheless I would suggest something of the spirit of that magnificent Vintners' Hall, one of Wren's great masterpieces in interior architecture. I hope that the Committee, when set up, will ask for competitive designs for the new House of Commons, allowing perfect freedom for the character and even the style. Personally, I rather feel that Ionic pilasters on the lower floor, with modillions supporting the galleries, and perhaps a Corinthian order above carrying a coffered roof, might give us a better effect than anything Gothic. Those preposterous pendants of the last House of Commons were not considered by most of us at, ornament. The roof was certainly not a thing of pride. The designs submitted might be commented upon by some of our distinguished architects who are too old to want to do the work themselves, but might be admirable in judging the designs, so that we may have the best achitecture that this generation knows.
It is proposed to set up a Select Committee. We all know what that means, or may mean. At least we ought to. We have all heard that if Noah had appointed a committee to build the Ark, they might or might not just be getting to work at the present time. If we set up a committee, and they do their work properly, and really set about getting the best design possible in the circumstances, I do not think we need fear any undue haste. I cannot help feeling enormous sympathy with the views put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). My experience is exactly the same as his. I cannot walk, or even cycle, through my constituency without getting asked again and again whether I cannot get somebody or other a house. The housing shortage is perfectly terrible in every part of the country. It is symbolic of national unity that we are now meeting in this Chamber, illustrating, emphasising to the entire world, the unity and harmony that exist between the two Houses of this Parliament. It is impossible not to feel that the present


arrangements might be allowed to continue for a certain time. I cannot imagine a more magnificent gesture than that we should declare that until the housing needs of the nation are fairly met, we can manage to make shift with this not entirely inconvenient Chamber in which we are sitting now. There is much feeling abroad that we are not sufficiently energetic about the Beveridge Report, the new educational reforms, or housing. When I was giving an address in my constituency the other day, I was asked by quite a number of by no means unfriendly hecklers whether the Government were really in earnest, and whether we should really get all this in our own day and generation. So I make a very earnest appeal that we shall declare to the entire world that until the housing needs of the nation are met, we will continue to sit where we are.

Mr. McEntee: I would like, if it is not considered an impertinence, to pay tribute to the very great speech made by the Prime Minister. I agree with him, and not with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), as to the situation of the future House of Commons. The old House had many inconveniences. [An HON. MEMSER: "It had nothing else."] I think it had much in addition. It had association with those pants of the building to which reference has just been made—Westminster Hall, the Crypt underneath, the Cloisters, and other parts which to me seem worth preserving.

Mr. Maxton: Did they play any part whatever in our legislative work?

Mr. McEntee: That depends on what the hon. Member means. They certainly played a part in our legislative work in the past, and if I am asked whether they played a part in the legislative work of the immediate past, I should say, Yes.

Mr. Maxton: In our time?

Mr. McEntee: In my view, they did.

Mr. Maxton: The Crypt and Westminster Hall?

Mr. McEntee: The Crypt has been used, even in my time as a Member of Parliament, for incidents connected with the conduct of Parliament, and the building

itself is of very great value. I can remember conferences taking place in Westminster Hall. The two Houses met His late Majesty there. I can remember incidents there which have the closest association with our Parliamentary life. [Interruption.] I have just been reminded that the French President came there not so very long ago. Quite outside all that, there is the practical side. All the Government offices are in or close to the House of Commons. Whitehall is the area in which Government offices are. If the House of Commons were to be removed to some place 20 or 30 miles away, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton has suggested, it would, in the first place, create many practical difficulties. If it must be removed, I do not know any place more suitable than the Prime Minister's own constituency. Where could you find a better place than the centre of Epping Forest?

Mr. Maxton: How far away is that?

Mr. McEntee: The Prime Minister's constituency starts about eight or nine miles from here, and goes a long way into upping Forest. I am interested in that, because part of my constituency is in the Forest. The Prime Minister's inclination, and my own, might be to have the new House of Commons in his constituency—it would be a very fine site. But the best thing would be to have it here. I do not think we should build the House of Commons exactly as it was before. I do not think that the architectural value of the old House was anything to boast about. When the Lobbies are constructed—in which I hope to take part in some Divisions in future—I hope that they will be more on the lines of the Cloisters downstairs than of the Lobbies we had in the past. I feel that Members ought to get better accommodation than they have had in the past. The question arises of how it is to be done. I think it is possible. I know of no reason why the House should not be built higher. It could have the general characteristics of the old House, with accommodation for Members above. I have not discussed this question with anybody, but I heard the idea mentioned casually here to-day, and I have thought over whether it is possible. I think it is, and I hope that the Committee will give it consideration. It might be considered an abomination to have a lift so close to the old House of Commons, but I do not see


any objection. There might be one at the back of the old Speaker's Chair, so that we could get reasonably quickly to the accommodation prepared for us upstairs.
I appreciate the objection which the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and others have mentioned, the criticism that we shall be subject to—and rightly—if we do anything which would unreasonably prevent building for the people. I doubt whether there is any Member of this House who is more pressed in his own constituency for additional housing accommodation than I am in mine. I live in my constituency, I meet the people every day, and I am continually being pressed by my constituents for additional housing accommodation. But I should not object in the slightest degree to meeting these people after the new House has been built, even if it is built during the war, and putting to them an answer to their question as to why, when they cannot have houses, we can have a new Parliament. Everybody who knows anything about building knows that the material which would be used in the rebuilding of the House of Commons is in no way similar to the material used for the housing of the people generally. I imagine that it will be a stone similar to that used recently in the repair of the old House. I imagine that the timber will be English oak—at least, I hope it will be English oak which is used in rebuilding the English House of Commons. I know of no timber more suitable. [Interruption.] I apologise; I should have said, "the British House of Commons." If those materials are used, what harm could it do on the material side to rebuild the House of Commons during the war? It would not interfere with the building of houses when it becomes possible to build houses. They must be built with timber and other materials which are suitable for the building of houses, and the material which is used for building the House of Commons is undoubtedly not suitable for building ordinary houses.
Like all prophets, I am never sure of what I prophesy; but I. would point out that we have had a great boom in the building trade, and great numbers of men and women have been brought in from outside, in addition to those already in the trade, to meet a war need. It was entirely a war need. Great buildings have

been put up in the country in places which were almost inaccessible. That need has been almost met. The result must be that, in the very near future, a large number of building trade operatives will not be required in the trade any longer. What is to be done with them? It may be said that they should be put into other war industries, but many of them—not most of them—would be quite useless in other war industries. They are the older men, who have been in the building trade all their lives and are past training for other industries, although they are experts in their own. It is experts in the building trade who are required to rebuild our House of Commons. I do not think, therefore, that there is any difficulty about labour or about materials, if we decide to rebuild during the war.
I take many people around the House of Commons from time to time and a number of them have expressed to me the view that it would be a very great pity if the House of Commons was rebuilt for at least a few years after the war. They say, "Leave it there just as it is, and let people from abroad, when the opportunity is open to them again, come over and see what the Germans did to our ancient building of Westminster Palace." That is an aspect which ought to be considered by the Committee. It may be said that we do not want to make a show place of our House of Commons and that to bring tourists here is something that is cheap and something which we ought not to keep up. I do not agree. There is a great deal to be said from the point of view that people from the Colonies and the Dominions would desire to see what happened to the House of Commons. When members of other Governments or members of the public from other countries come over here, as I hope they will soon after the war, we should give them an opportunity of seeing what happened.
There is a great deal to be said for the objection to the form of the Committee that is going to consider the matter. If history and our experience mean anything, we are not likely to get the Report for some years, and it may be, as an hon. Member said, almost a century after the war. The Prime Minister indicated that it was his desire and the desire of the Government that the Report should be made quickly. I shall have sufficient


confidence in the people on that Committee, whoever they may be, to believe they will make their Report sufficiently quickly to enable the plans to be got ready so that the building can be put up after the war.

Sir Alfred Beit: Before the Debate goes any further I would like to express my disapproval of the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) and certain other hon. Members that when we come to rebuilding the House of Commons special accommodation should be made available for other purposes above it. If that were done, we would have no daylight whatever in the new Chamber, and having sat, like many others, for two years in this artificial illumination, I certainly look forward to the day when we can have a Chamber very much better lit than the former House of Commons used to be.
The reason why I intervene now is to express a certain uneasiness, which, I hope, can be conveyed to the Prime Minister, because he alone can set my fears at rest, as to some of the words in the Motion. The words to which I refer are, "preserving all its essential features." It has not been made clear to me what exactly is meant by essential features. The Prime Minister gave certain definitions, many of which referred to spiritual matters far beyond the physical considerations which are before us and which relate, over the centuries, to a period long before the House sat in the Chamber destroyed by Hitler in 1941. If the essential features are what I think they are, then I have a great feeling of uneasiness. I would not like this Select Committee to be appointed with its hands so tied. If we appoint Select Committees, we should at least allow them a certain latitude. The Prime Minister has made it clear that if this Motion is carried in this form the Select Committee will be very limited indeed in what it can recommend for the future reconstruction of the Chamber. On certain points there is general agreement as to the shape of the Chamber and I can agree with the desire to carry on the oblong shape and to avoid the Continental Chamber.
On the question of the size of the Chamber, which the Prime Minister also wishes to see perpetuated, there might

very well be two opinions. We may have to consider in the near future a redistribution of seats, and it is not inconceivable that there might be more Members as a result, that is, unless Wales and Scotland are prepared to give up some of their seats, which I doubt whether they will do without a struggle. It is possible for people who sit on the Front Bench to say the Chamber is big enough, but those who know what it is like on certain occasions realise that the argument can be advanced that certain alterations might be necessary. That is as I see it. The words "preserving all its essential features" mean that the Select Committee would have ruled out from the start any proposal that the outside walls should be moved from where they now stand. That is one of the reasons why I think the Select Committee should be given a greater latitude.
I cannot agree more heartily than I do with my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) regarding his observations of the architectural style. If "essential features" means what I think it means, the Select Committee would be obliged to reproduce as faithfully as possible the Gothic characteristics of the former Chamber, and those characteristics date from a period which is an extremely unhappy period in British architecture and which in no way represented the inmost feelings of the architects and workmen of that time. If you want to see real Gothic, cross over the road to St. Margaret's, Westminster. That is different from the Chamber which we used to know, for, as an hon. Member said, it was like a Methodist chapel. If hon. Members go into the dining room they will see a picture of the House of Commons as it was before the fire of 1834. It was the same oblong shape, but it was simpler and more dignified and an excellent example of the decoration and architecture of the great Renaissance period in England. Though I do not suggest we should copy that detail any more than we should copy the later Chamber, I support the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston, that we should not be tied down to reproducing in full detail the decoration and architecture of the Chamber destroyed two years ago.
I do not know whether the Committee will have full powers to go into these


questions. They may say that the Dominion of Canada, when they built their House of Commons, did us the honour of imitating in every detail the then existing British House of Commons. They may say, "That was their view and we are instructed to rebuild preserving all essential features and it is obviously not within our power to consider any new forms of decoration reverting to any previous style or experimenting in new ones." If I can be told that the essential features will be limited to such obvious details as Mr. Speaker's Chair, the Clerks' table, clocks and so forth, which are essential, I shall be happy. I want to know whether this Committee, which I assume will consist of representative Members of Parliament, is not from the very start to be tied down in such a way that it cannot make any deviation in any shape or form from the old Chamber.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I would like to contribute a few sentences to this very interesting Debate, and the one thing I want to press upon the House is that I would not like Members to think entirely of the location of the rebuilt House of Commons nor the architecture, although important, nor the ornamentation, nor the size of the Chamber. We must all understand that a Parliament is intended to be a place where men and women speak to each other, and unless we satisfy that first qualification, the location, architecture and ornamentation are of no consequence at all. It is very painful here sometimes to know that a Member has a very good story to tell and nobody can hear it. I want to suggest that when the Select Committee receive evidence about these other problems connected with the new House they will not leave out the paramount point, namely, the acoustics of the new place. I have had the privilege of seeing Parliaments abroad, and I would like to make this observation. I do not like the circular Chamber. I prefer meeting my political opponent face to face. I do not like turning at a slant to argue with him. The trouble now in Coalition is that I meet my political friends face to face, which is a disadvantage on occasion.
An hon. Gentleman below the Gangway mentioned that we have to be very careful about the location of the new Parliament; it must be in Westminster, because the Departments of State are here. But I am sure I am right in saying that

the Departments of State are scattered all over the country at the moment. [Interruption.] Not the chief offices I know, but the Civil Service staffs which work for Government Departments. Why, they have taken over nearly the whole of Blackpool and Cleveleys to my knowledge. I would ask that that should be taken into account as well.
With regard to accommodation for Members of Parliament, I have been here for a long time, and, frankly, I was a little annoyed when I came here, being a trade union official with an office of my own. I found that there was no accommodation at all except on chance. I have been through the Senate and Congress in Washington. An hon. Gentleman suggested that you cannot have the offices for Members of Parliament outside this building. I have been in an underground railway in the Senate in Washington. When a member of the Senate has finished his work in the Chamber he takes a trip underground to his office on a little electric railway and comes back again when he is called. Every member of the Senate and Congress has a suite of rooms for himself. The one think that I have felt the need of here is the lack of accommodation in order to do my work effectively. I hope that the Select Committee will bear that in mind. As to the location of Parliament, it does not matter what anybody may say here. In my view, tradition will determine that and tradition will determine that it shall be built here. I do not think there is any question about that at all. In some countries Parliament is not in the largest city. Washington is not the largest city in America, and in Springfield, Illinois, there is a Parliament too.

Mr. Hannah: It is the capital of the State.

Mr. Davies: Exactly, but it has a Parliament. I want to emphasise that on the Continent of Europe it is the orator who is listened to. There is a rostrum, and he mounts the rostrum, and unless he is a first-class orator he cannot make headway at all in his Parliament. I pay tribute to this Parliament, because its most humble Member may speak and that is more important than listening to a few great orators.

Mr. Buchanan: There is sometimes a hefty House.

Mr. Davies: Look at it to-day. I want to re-emphasise that the location and type of the building, its architecture, whether stone or timber, are all subservient to the one factor, namely, whether you can get a Chamber in which people can talk to each other and make themselves heard. I like Parliamentary democracy; I will do everything I can to maintain it, because it is from striking on the anvil of argument that we succeed and progress. I hope I may live long enough to be a Member in the new Chamber, wherever it is built.

Lieut.-Colonel H. Guest: I sympathise very much with the last words of the speech made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). When the Prime Minister made his statement about the future he said that the proposed new House of Commons should be built within the four walls of the old Chamber as they at present exist. But my feeling is that the Chamber as it was was too small for the needs of this Parliament. I believe that Members have been happier sitting in this Chamber than they were in the old Chamber. There is more room, the acoustics are better, there is more space generally, and back bench Members, in particular, have been more comfortable and more suited to a Chamber of this size than the one we had to leave when it was destroyed. Therefore, I hope the Select Committee will not be bound by the existing four walls of the old Chamber and that if necessary they will spread, either in length or breadth, without affecting the fundamental arrangement of the House, which enables Members to sit opposite one another and discuss matters across the Floor and the Table. If we intend to do something to the House of Commons itself, I hope we may do something in connection with the Libraries, which are undoubtedly too small for the needs of Members. Sometimes I have been in there and have found every seat taken, and I have often looked into the room opposite and found it occupied by Members, perhaps of the Opposition, who make use of it. The Lobbies might be larger and more convenient in order to enable Members to have more discussions than they have to-day.
I cannot help thinking that we should modernise in our space so that Members can carry out their duties. More and more in the future we shall have to be in the

House of Commons for the many great Debates that will arise. Typewriting and dictating arrangements are also quite impossible. These are things which must come within the purview of the Select Committee. I speak only as a back bench Member, who has been here many years and has found some of these disadvantages. I hope the Select Committee will in no way be limited to the old Chamber itself but will review the whole of the operational side of Members' lives and the convenience and amenities which they ought to have to do their work properly.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I hope that the small attendance in the House to-day does not mean that hon. Members do not attach great importance to the proposal which is before us. Taking the long-term view, I believe that the size and shape, although not possibly the architectural design and ornament, of the Chamber in which we have to carry on our deliberations has the most profound effect on the history of this country. The Prime Minister enunciated a great truth when he said, "We shape our buildings, and our buildings shape us." I completely disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Lieut.-Colonel Guest). I have noticed a distinct change in the nature of this House of Commons since we have come into this actual place. I have noticed more difficulty in controlling the Government, as it were, a lack of intimacy, a falling off in the quality of Members speeches, owing to the great size of this Chamber. We have sent the House of Lords, our noble landlords, to a much smaller room, perhaps one quarter the size of this, and it has meant their rebirth as a deliberative assembly. Any Member of the House of Lords would tell you that. I do not think the subject matter of the Motion is a matter of opinion or nostalgia, but a practical matter which has been proved by experiment in the past. It is just because it is so important that this House of Commons should get back to the atmosphere of intimacy and close control that I think we are not only justified, but bound, to take the earliest steps to return to the same sort of habitation as our original place. That is my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). I think it will mean great changes, and changes for the worse, in the life of this House of Commons, and in the debating qualities


of this House, if we sit in this place much longer.
The two great questions before the House to-day seem to me to be the shape of the Chamber and its size. There does not seem to have been much argument in favour of a semi-circular chamber. If there is, I hope hon. Members will seriously address their minds to the question whether a semi-circular chamber has not been the death warrant of Parliamentary democracy on the Continent, and in many parts of the world. I think that if the French Parliament had had a rectangular Chamber, and their Government had had the power of dissolution, the effect on democracy in France might have been far different. By far the greater measure of discussion, so far, has been about the size of the Chamber. I cast my vote unhesitatingly for an intimate Chamber. I loathe and detest addressing great open spaces as, no doubt, do other Members. I look back not only with nostalgia and affection, but with admiration, to that atmosphere of tense and lively and concentrated interest in the great moments we have had in the past. I remember particularly the Debate on 8th May, 1940, which brought about the fall of the last Government. So I cast my vote unhesitatingly for the smallest possible Chamber. I beg hon. Members who have experience of foreign or Colonial Parliaments to think whether the shape and size of those Chambers have not had a considerable effect on the history of those institutions.
Next we come to the point of architectural style. I am not one of those who decry the style of this Palace of Westminster. I believe it is dignified and in the true English tradition and that it is particularly suited to Parliamentary democracy. It is not a pompous but a dignified and good style and I think we ought to be grateful to Barrie and Pugin. As to the details of ornamentation I think the old Chamber was done on the cheap; a lot of it was trumpery. There is a lot of detail I would like to alter, but I will not worry the House with my reactions at the moment. I would, however, like to impress upon the House the desirability of not creating a new House of Commons which would clash with the prevailing style of architecture in this Palace. There I depart from my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah). Architectural

tastes are so vastly different, but I feel that in architecture his taste is bastard.

Mr. Hannah: What about Hampton Court and the great Elizabethan mansions?

Mr. Nicholson: Nobody could possibly call Hampton Court bastard architecture. However, I do not want to be diverted further. I want to beseech the House, in all seriousness to think of the examples of other Parliaments, whether our two-party system has not depended upon our rectangular Chamber and whether the high respect in which the House of Commons is held in this country is not due largely to the extraordinary vitality of our Debates. I would ask them to reflect whether that vitality has not been to some extent dissipated in this present Chamber. I unhesitatingly support the Motion before the House and I hope it will be carried without a Division.

Mr. Viant: I have listened with intense interest to the Debate, and as far as I can gather the rectangular shape of building has received general assent. The admirable speech of the Prime Minister was most convincing in that respect but I would impress upon the House that when the Motion states that the Select Committee shall have regard to all the essential features of the old House—for that is the sum and substance of it—it is the desire of the Prime Minister and the Government, apparently, that we shall to a very large extent copy the essentials of the old place. The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) referred to the lack of ability to hear in this House. I do not think that that is in any way due to the size of the Chamber; it is very largely due to its structure. It is impossible to obtain the best acoustics in this House without in some way or other detracting from its architecture. So it is not a question of size. I agree that it is most uncomfortable when one rises in a Chamber of this size and sees so many empty seats. We have all experienced that, but I would prefer that to being in a congested Chamber such as the old Chamber. It was most uncomfortable, and on numerous occasions it was utterly impossible for Members to find a seat. I have seen Members in the galleries but the galleries themselves were by no means


satisfactory, again because of the acoustics of the Chamber.
I paid strict attention to the speech of the Prime Minister, and it appeared to me that he had a keen desire to erect another building on the walls, as it were, of the existing foundations of the old Chamber. That means we are limited in length and breadth. I listened very attentively to the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for West Waltham-stow (Mr. McEntee), who suggested that it might be possible to raise the height of the building with a view to providing more accommodation for Members upstairs. That would not be in keeping with the Motion, and anything that might be suggested in that regard would be unacceptable for this reason. The old Chamber was placed between two existing buildings, therefore you must keep the architecture of the remaining buildings, otherwise you will have a bastard building of the worst possible kind. It would be an eyesore to everyone. Outside you must endeavour to keep the existing building. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There is room for disagreement. I am prepared to submit my proposals and to abide by a critical examination of them, but you must at all times consider that this is a limiting Motion, and the Select Committee has to act within its confines. I think it is desirable that we should keep the outside of the building in conformity with the existing building. It may be possible within that space to provide a rather larger Chamber by making the Division Loonies narrower than they were, but when it comes to making more provision for Members in the matter of writing facilities and the like, it seems to me an almost impossible proposition within the confines of the Motion.
In the construction of this House, of course, very many mistakes were made. The original Commission made an extraordinary mistake in selecting the stone for the remainder of the building, because it was taken from a quarry in which there had been a geological disturbance, and there were any number of fissures in which the corrosion of the London atmosphere caused considerable trouble in respect of the stone splitting. I know this, because I was on the Committee which investigated the problem in 1924. I mention this so that the Committee may see that nothing of the kind happens again.

The Motion brings us down to realities in this sense, that we have to a very large degree to agree to the erection of a new House in conformity with the previous House. There is very little choice for us. Inside, it might be possible to make such an alteration, but in the general and main outline it will be a reproduction of the old House. It had its shortcomings and disadvantages, but I sat there from 1923, with a break of four years, and I had become accustomed to it. I appreciated the old House and could accommodate myself to it, but, if it is possible to make improvements within the limits of the Motion, I hope the Select Committee will do all it is possible to have done in the circumstances.

Mr. Arthur Duckworth: I do not find myself altogether in agreement with the views the hon. Member has just expressed. Only one speaker has definitely opposed the Motion, but some of us feel a sense of uneasiness about its terms, and I think there is some danger of the House and the proposed Committee being unduly swayed by sentimental considerations. After all, in the pre-war years many fine buildings, far finer than the old Chamber, were destroyed without any assistance from the enemy, and unfortunately this process was regarded with almost complete equanimity. It is also the case that there were very few instances where those buildings were destroyed and rebuilt in which the buildings which replaced them could be said to be in any way an improvement on the original buildings. Therefore, from a purely sentimental point of view, I hope we are going to preserve some reasonable sense of proportion. Although we may greatly regret the old Chamber, with all its historical associations, it is in my view the fact that its destruction has presented us with a great opportunity. Now that it no longer exists, we may as well face the fact that it had many serious defects. Its public galleries were hopelessly inadequate and badly placed. It suffered from a system of ventilation which was antiquated and calculated to give everyone cold feet and a hot head, and lastly it was built at a time when the standard of taste and design had probably reached a lower ebb than at any time in our history. It was, in fact, a dim and depressing interior and its acoustics were not particularly good.
It is in respect of these considerations that the last words of the Motion seem to


be rather dangerous and ominous—"while preserving all its essential features." I wish to support very strongly the point made by the hon. Member for South East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit). Is it going to be for the Committee to decide what is the definition of "essential features"? Is it going to depend on the composition of the Committee to decide exactly what those words mean? I think we should be given some answer to this question. Various speakers have touched on the question of design. I do not think that is a suitable topic for us to discuss to-day. That can very well be left to the Committee, but there were certain features of the old House which I and many of my hon. Friends certainly do not wish to see reproduced in the Chamber which will eventually replace the old one. It has been suggested by more than one speaker that the ruins of the old Chamber should be left as they are as a sort of war memorial and that we should rebuild on a completely different site. I take the view that that is a ludicrous suggestion. It is a ludicrous piece of sentimentality. It is certainly a suggestion which future generations would not approve. On the contrary, I believe that we have been given a wonderful opportunity of building a dignified and imposing House of Commons Chamber of good design with modern equipment, worthy of the great traditions and the long history of Parliament. If we can achieve that, and the Select Committee can succeed in its work, though we may have sentimental regrets for the past, we shall have here in the heart of the British Empire a House of Commons which will be a worthy memorial of the days when this country stood alone against the fury of Hitler's onslaughts.

Mr. Buchanan: I cannot see the need for this Motion at all. It is a definitely limiting Motion. It says that the building in design and character is to be the same as the old building and, if that is what is to be done, we do not want to appoint a Committee but an engineer to get on with the job. The idea of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) was worlds worse. He says, "Build it like the old one but with something on top of it." It reminds me of the ugly cars that we see in the streets. They may be necessary in war-time, but I think there is nothing uglier than a motor car with a bag thing on top.

Mr. McEntee: Is it not a fact that the Palace of Westminster has varying heights in the actual building and that they add to the beauty of the building and do not detract from it? Why should another storey destroy its architectural beauty?

Mr. Buchanan: I cannot see it. We are definitely limited in the matter of size and the type of building, and the Committee is to be set up within that framework. We all have some kind of regard for the past, but some of us also have regard for the present. I think we ought to admit that the old generation did not have a monopoly of wisdom in these matters, any more than the new has. I reject the suggestion that the modern generation cannot produce a new building as beautiful as anything that has been produced in the past. I am no judge of these matters because I have little education and little knowledge of them but, looking at Lambeth Bridge and the abortion at Charing Cross, give me Lambeth Bridge every time. It is far more beautiful. It was built by people of this generation. I reject the idea that the young men of this generation are not good enough to design a new House of Commons. It is not a fair thing to say. I should like the new House of Commons to be designed by some of those who are now in the Forces. It would be the best testimonial to the men—something done by themselves and not by an outworn past. An hon. Member has said that the reason for the downfall of France lay in the shape of the French Chamber. Really we must try to be serious. The downfall of France was a serious matter, and no man ought to dismiss it in flippant terms. The shape of the French Chamber had nothing to do with it. The old House of Commons was small and of oblong shape. I have a great deal of sympathy with those who say the present Chamber is preferable to the old one. The air here is much fresher. I am town bred, but even I like fresh air, and I prefer the atmosphere of this Chamber to the terrible atmosphere of the old one, which at times was musty. How can Socialists, the builders of the new Jerusalem, have so much regard for a place that had such a terrible atmosphere and was never properly heated.
I used to speak a great deal in the old Chamber. One year I held the record for making speeches—a thing which was neither creditable to the House of Commons nor to me. The subject of unemployment


insurance was before us and I intervened constantly, and I found it an easy place to speak in, but I found the temporary building which we occupied for some time a still easier place to speak in. Most places are easy to speak in—except my constituency, where I find it more difficult, because they know me better. But I say frankly that we ought to build a new Chamber and have it built by modern people with modern ideas. It should show those who come after us that not only had Britain men capable of fighting but men capable of designing a good building, where men and women could plan the Britain we want in the future. I want a House of Commons planned by the men who are good enough to fight and at the same time are good enough for better things. They have the capacity to do it—to blend the best of the old with something new, because I do not believe the old had a monopoly of the best things.
I agree with the Member who said that in a building built within the terms of this Motion we shall not get decent writing rooms. Who could interview his constituents properly in the old place? What happened when three or four people came to see a Member? They had to sit in a miserable lobby, which was often wind swept when the doors were open. They could be taken downstairs for a cup of tea. A lady could not be taken down, and it was a good thing too, because one could not take a lady to a sort of place which was only an apology for a bad butcher's shop. It had tiles round it. An old-fashioned interior in Gorbals would not have been as bad. Look at the old tea room! The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), with his engineering friends, must have been ashamed to take them there, and I was ashamed to take even humble people from the Gorbals. Joking apart, who was ever proud of yon terrible place? The terrace had some little attraction, but that was about all there was, and usually the terrace was used for only a few weeks in the year.
Everybody who has spoken so far has assumed that he is going to have a place in the new House of Commons. I speak somewhat diffidently about it. I am not so sure. They must be thinking the Diety will keep them alive—but the Diety changes his mind—and that the electors will be sure to send them back here. Let

us assume that some of us will be back here. I want a Chamber built that will be a good place for a challenging Debate, a well furnished place, a place where the acoustics will be good, where the air will be good and where Members will be given every reasonable opportunity to carry on their work. Let hon. Members on this side remember that the Labour force here may be a growing one, and the Conservatives may find poorer men coming in on their side. Under those changed conditions the people get to know us better, our constituents find they have an approach which they did not have before. I remember when one of my predecessors, the late Mr. Bonar Law, came to Gorbals he was met with a band and banners. In those days a Member of Parliament was someone apart. I go down there now and they only say "There's Georgie again." Things are different. In the case of both Conservative Members and Labour Members the intimacy with constituents must continue to grow, correspondence increases and we must have facilities for doing our work. The test of a House of Commons is not in the building. The test of a House of Commons is how far it can make the lives of people happier than in the past. To give us a decent House of Commons will not make their lives altogether happier but the Members of the House of Commons will feel that they are better equipped for their job.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not know with what degree of interest the House will want to listen to one who has not been a Member of it for a long time, and who by the nature of things will one day have to go elsewhere whatever his constituents may do with him in the meanwhile. Nevertheless, I should like to express in a few sentences my views on this subject. I would begin by agreeing with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that the terms of this Motion are too narrow. A number of speeches to that effect have been made, and I hope that the Postmaster-General, if he is to reply to the Debate, will take an early opportunity of intervening and tell us that the Select Committee will take a wide view of its terms of reference, because we want to be certain that all the matters which have been raised to-day will be taken into account. I listened with a great deal of interest and warm appreciation to what the Prime Minister


said, but I thought it was a little alarming when he began to quote actual figures of the numbers of workmen who would be employed and the actual quarries which would have to be opened. It seemed to me that that part of his speech was in the nature of a schedule of building materials and of labour and could only be based on a very exact idea, in the Prime Minister's own mind, of how the Clamber was to be built. There will have to be some departure from that, it seems to me, if the various demands which have been made by hon. Members are to be satisfied.
I agree broadly with the views which have been expressed by other hon. Members as to the shape of the new Chamber, but, again I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Gorbals when he found himself at variance with the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) who said that one of the causes of the downfall of France was the shape of its Chamber. That is carrying things very much too far. We do not know exactly what form our Parliamentary democracy will take in this country in future years. It has been said by some that we have had, in effect, a Coalition since 1931, and we cannot now say that after the war we shall return to strict party divisions, with a number of supporters of the Government faced by a comparable number of Members of the Opposition. I do not like to advance the view that we ought to have a semi-circular Chamber, but at the same time I feel the Committee might well bear it in mind with their eyes on possible party alignments in the future.
I was much in agreement with the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Duckworth) when he mentioned the galleries. It was lamentable that in the old Chamber there was so little room for the Press, and particularly for the foreign and Empire Press. It is a point to which we shall have to pay more regard after the war, possibly, than before. We ought also to make better provision for the many visitors from overseas who will be coming here and will desire to attend our Debates. A point which has not been mentioned may particularly interest the Postmaster-General, because he exercises authority over the Department which may be primarily concerned, and that is the question of introducing some electrical machinery to facilitate the business of recording a Division. The Prime Minister

spoke about 20 Divisions in a single day. Five hours of time taken up in "trekking" through Division Lobbies—sometimes a very agreeable process when you want to meet those whom you have not previously seen or when you want to hear what exactly was the Amendment upon which, you have just voted, but, nevertheless, sometimes a maddening waste of time. Perhaps the Select Committee might consider adopting some 20th century practice of pressing buttons or dialling dials. The General Post Office might be asked to design some apparatus which would satisfy the numerous and often conflicting requirements. The only other point I wish to make is that I hope the Select Committee will include some of the younger Members of the House who will be going on, it is hoped, for many Parliaments in the future, and, if I may suggest it with respect, not include any of those who have decided to retire before the next Election.

Mr. John Wilmot: I should be surprised and sorry to think that the Motion, as set down, is quite so limited as the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and others seemed to believe.

Mr. Stokes: Gorbals, not "Goebbels."

Mr. Wilmot: That seems to be a reflection on the acoustics in this Chamber.

Mr. Buchanan: It may be a reflection on the hon. Member's use of the Scottish language.

Mr. Wilmot: I think that the limits of the Motion are much wider. I do not think the Committee will be limited to the exact size but will merely be limited to remaining the essential features of the old Chamber.

Mr. Buchanan: The building has to be on the old site, so the size is bound to be limited.

Lieut.-Colonel H. Guest: I think the Prime Minister's remarks did definitely limit the thing to a restoration of the old Chamber.

Mr. Wilmot: The terms of the Motion do not say it and it may well be that within the terms of the Motion some minor modifications of size will be possible. I suggest that few Members would


wish to alter the essential features of the old Chamber—I should not—that it should be rectangular and that it should be arranged as the old one was, that is should be roughly the same size, for to have it very much larger or very much smaller would seem to me to have many disadvantages. Within the terms of reference it would be possible for an able designer to find a way for a few more seats for Members, and rather better placed, probably by better use of the south end of the Chamber; and certainly he should provide what is necessary to accommodate more public and more Press. I think it will be found that these things can be done within the scope of the Motion. My hon. Friends have felt, and I think it is very natural at this time, that at the end of a chapter of history we might well commence by building a new kind of Chamber. It is to some an attractive idea but one which I hope the House will reject. We are building for posterity, and nothing is so liable to become out-of-date as a new architectural style. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not if it is good."] It is difficult for a contemporary to be a judge of its essential merits.
I happen to be a member of the London County Council and in the County Hall there is a new debating chamber designed for a new building after the last war, when people had the same kind of feeling as we have now. It was thought to be a fine building. I still think it is, but its debating Chamber is deplorable. It was built by a fine young architect; he had one of the biggest and most responsible tasks that ever fell to an architect of his age and time, but he completely failed in the design of the Chamber. Unfortunately he died at a young age. He made the mistake, an old mistake, of providing a semicircular Chamber and of providing each member with a set desk and seat and he completely destroyed thereby any sense of gathering round for intimate discussion. To address the London County Council is to make a speech in a tomb. He also made the mistake of lining it with marble, so that the acoustics have become so intolerable that we have had to cover all the marble with curtains in order that speakers can be heard at all. This was a modern attempt, with the advantage of every modern aid, to provide an ideal debating

Chamber. Each member had a knob which he could press to regulate the ventilation according to his personal taste; but adjacent members have different tastes, so that does not work very well. There it is, near to us, a standing example of how not to do it.
The old House of Commons to which I came some years ago, and from which alas I was absent for some time, had proved itself through the years an almost ideal Chamber. Its acoustics were on the whole very good. It was lined with oak, which time has shown to be the best acoustic material. It provided an intimate sense of discussion and because the Members had no set seats the empty spaces were always away down at the end. Even the smallest assembly in the old Chamber had a feeling of completeness of men gathering in a library round a table to discuss a matter of common interest. Yet when it was completely full, there was, as the Prime Minister said in his grand speech to-day, a sense of big occasion. All of us who have had the habit to call meetings will know how much better it is to have a small hall packed to overflowing than a big hall partly full. So I think that, within the terms of the Motion, it will be possible to devise a new Chamber which will retain the sense of intimacy and not limit those who have to design it to a too exact copy of the old.
We do want a few more seats perhaps, but not many more; I should imagine that another 30 would make a great difference in comfort and accommodation of the House. We do not want quite a replica of some of the rather tawdry, Victorian Tudor-Gothic which was rather carried to excess in the Old Chamber. On the other hand we do not want to disfigure the extraordinary success of this surprisingly successful facade by building an entirely new type in the middle of it. We have to make a compromise between the old and the new, which is after all, a fitting thing to do.
While the new Chamber is being built within the terms of this Motion, there is surely nothing to prevent the formulation of plans for later building something in addition to a new Chamber. We want a new Chamber, but we also want later on some new facilities. It would be really bad that Members of this House of Parliament should much longer after the war be expected to use the downstairs smoking


room as the only visitors room; a sort of luxury gentlemen's lavatory which might have been constructed in the Gothic of Paddington Station. It is a deplorable affair; and there is enormous waste of space, due to the construction of the ground floor of this building. I hope when the present emergency is past that we shall be able to tackle the job of providing Members with a workshop worthy of the work which they are doing.
Certainly, there must be recognition that we have evolved from the quill pen to the typewriter. There is no provision in this House for anybody to use a typewriter, except under the most archaic conditions. We have also another invention which has come to us since this House was built, the telephone. The telephone here is an outcast, crowded into odd corners, to be sneaked to with pieces of paper. There is no facility for using the telephone at a desk, which is the way in which everybody uses the telephone for every other occasion and purpose. When this House was built, electricity had not been developed and so all the ventilation was carried out, I believe, by the method of making fires and creating a draught along corridors. The fires are gone. The draughts are still with us. An entirely new system of ventilation is needed, based upon the electric fan; air-conditioning can be adapted to the new Chamber built upon the place of the old.
It seems to me that some provision should be made for the accommodation of Members upon reasonable terms. I am a Londoner and I have the easiest of conditions, but the difficulties of many Members from distant constituencies and of slender means are quite unnecessary. I do think that in designing rooms apart from the Chamber in which Parliament may do its work we should provide for proper office and secretarial accommodation and if possible for some mid-week residential facilities for a limited number of Members who might wish to make use of them. Finally, there is the point that a large part of the business of Members is in seeing people, and there is just no adequate provision here for interviews. It should be possible to bring visitors into this Palace of Westminster in dignity and comfort. I hope that provision will be made for that. I propose to support the Motion and I hope that the majority of Members will do the same.

Captain Cunningham-Reid: I should very much like to be a member of this Select Committee, but I am afraid that my chances of such an appointment are rather remote. I have, however, taken a very real interest in the question of what the new House of Commons is to be like. Admitted, that that interest is to some extent for the same reason as that stated by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who said that it was possibly in the hope that he would still be a Member of Parliament when the new House is built.
I am not very concerned with whether the new House is going to be oblong or semi-circular. I was, though, very intrigued with the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). He seemed to have some very beautiful, although some pixilated idea about having the House of Commons segregated some 20 miles from London, the nerve centre of our nation. I wondered whether he also intended to move all the Government Departments from London to 20 miles outside. If so, that would be an immense task, but unless the Government Departments were adjacent to the House of Commons, the whole idea of our having the House of Commons outside London would be negatived. Though that idea did not appeal to me, nor am I concerned about the shape of the building of the new House, nor do I desire to be able to bang the lid of my desk, I feel with other Members that it is absolutely essential that in the new House ventilation should be considerably improved. But this is what I want to stress. Though keeping to our traditions we should keep—to use the Prime Minister's words to-day—"to the sharp pace that modern life has brought upon us."
For once I find myself in the very rare position of being in agreement with the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) who has just spoken. I do believe with him that it is a great opportunity for us to instal in this new House of Commons a more expeditous way of voting. It has already been pointed out to-day, I think with some force, that as in the old days, so in the days to come, unless we get a more modern form of voting, we shall continue to waste anything up to three or four hours on those days when there are a


great number of Divisions. Without each Member having his own place in the new House there is no reason whatever why voting should not be done electrically. Hon. Members may smile, but if they had had the opportunity of travelling round and seeing Parliaments of other countries, they would have noticed that electrical voting has been done with considerable success. The Parliament I have in mind at the moment is the Parliament of Finland. There it has proved a great success. Here such a system could, in a year, save an immense amount of valuable time and by such means we should keep, to quote again the Prime Minister, "to the sharp pace that modern life has brought upon us."

Dr. Russell Thomas: I wish to say that I support the Motion as put forward by the Prime Minister. I was not only deeply impressed to-day by the superb language of the Prime Minister but also by the Prime Minister's fine appreciation of Parliamentary institutions and their implications. It has been a matter of wonder to me that the Debate to-day has followed more the material side of things rather than following the noble line developed by the Prime Minister. We have been concerned perhaps far too much with detail. It was not my intention when I came here to-day to take part in this Debate. I was only moved to do so by expressions of certain views, though they were not unexpected, from such a quarter as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) who suggested that some sort of political hotel could be erected, say somewhere in the suburbs of London, with all modern conveniences—mostly underground, I believe. He suggested to my mind a complete break with tradition. I think it was Disraeli who said in the old House across the way that when you break with tradition you inevitably replace it by a regime based on force.
I am not one of those who wishes to break with the past and to construct a brave new world completely dissociated from what has gone before. All our arts and crafts and skill in the art of government descend to us from the past, and it is buildings and their associations which tend to keep us in contact with those traditions. Nothing keeps us more in touch with our Parliamentary traditions than our presence here in the Palace of

Westminster. I have always, in spite of what so many say, regarded formality as one of the essentials of human existence. Good manners tend to stabilise our relationships one with another. Constitutional formalities induced in us by great buildings with their associations tend to stabilise the body politic and we should not forget this. I appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister is anxious to push on this work. It is essential to my mind that there should be no gap, no hiatus at the end of the war of perhaps three or four years before the new Parliament assembles in the building appropriate to it, in the precincts which have been associated with so much of the past. This is my reason; new forces will arise when this war is over, forces which will need to be controlled, and it is essential for these forces to meet under the traditions of the great Palace of Westminster because the very fact that they meet in these buildings will act as a controlling force and will help to guide men to sane conclusions.
Let us go ahead with this scheme with all the risks that might still be entailed in doing so. The Palace of Westminster has been associated in our history with Parliamentary government over a long period of time. It has been suggested earlier in the Debate that Parliament has met elsewhere, but for a long time past we have met in these buildings. They have for long been associated with the councils of the State, the King's Palace of Westminster. Indeed we have only to turn our minds back and we will remember that party government, the idea of an inner Cabinet, arose in the 18th century in the old Chamber which preceded this and which was situated within these precincts. Burke, Sheridan, Charles James Fox, Pitt and others there laid down the foundations of what we are enjoying today. Let us remember these things. As the Prime Minister so rightly said the other day, our institutions have been built through a long period of time on firm and sure foundations and will be well able to stand the shocks and the stresses which might impinge upon them in the post-war world. They will be better able to do that if we meet as soon as we can—that is those of us who will be fortunate enough to be here—in the building which has so long been associated with Parliamentary government and its development. So I beg the House to support the Motion


as put forward by the Prime Minister, not indeed shutting our eyes to the fact that we may alter here and displace there, but nevertheless bearing in mind that the building in the Palace of Westminster is part and parcel of the Parliamentary institutions which allow us to proceed united in the prosecution of a great and dangerous war and will allow us to bring in the reforms and benefits for the people of this Realm whom we all in our different ways endeavour to represent.

Mr. Stokes: I cannot say that I agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down. It would seem to me he is going backwards and not forwards. For my part, I would say that when on that famous night in 1941—and I was not very far from the precincts of this House when it happened—the old Chamber was destroyed I regarded it in my own mind as somewhat symbolical—the end of the old order. I think that some of the speeches that have been made to-day also support that view. I welcome the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). It seemed to me we might find that new institution which he runs, "Forward by the Right," for once inclining a bit towards the Left. Whether, in fact, when the new Chamber is built we find them going into the right Lobby or not, remains to be seen.
I got up to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) for whom I have personally the greatest esteem and who made a splendid speech. I do not resent in the slightest his quips at me regarding the downstairs tea-room. I agree I always regarded it as a cross betweens an underground station and a public convenience and no architect worthy of his salt would have constructed such a place for Members of this House to consort in. But I thought the hon. Member was a bit off side so far as his theological views were concerned. Of that no matter, but I never thought of the great Deity as changing his mind. To change the mind is a human frailty, not one which one would attribute to the Highest. On the other hand, I agree with the hon. Member in his objection that the Motion is so limited. The old foundations may have been good and all right but the site has been cleared now so let us employ the best brains and the best ingenuity we can and build a monument which is worthy of the best intentions

of the younger generation. I realise in the destruction of the old Chamber of conversation or Debates, whatever you call it, the passing of the old generation and the hope that the future generations would put up something which was really a testimonial to the energy, enthusiasm and suffering of the young people of to-day in bringing about the changes that must come. I agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals in that I would like to see something bigger, something which connotes an expansion of ideas. What we want to see is something which while it maintains if you like the old ideas, at the same time gives us a greater promse of opportunity for the future. We are going to increase our numbers in these islands and not reduce them as the Reich Fuehrer intended; if so we are not going to be limited to 600 Members of this House; we shall be more numerous. Quite obviously the accommodation we had before will be quite inadequate.
I really got up to say something which is entirely out of Order. I got up to say this, with great sincerity, because this is probably the only opportunity I shall ever get of doing so. While recognising that the old foundations on which the old Chamber was built were solid—you could not go any lower than what exists there to-day, that is the earth—do not let this House forget that they have already betrayed the future in the answers which were given to-day at Question time about the return to gold and the artificial basis on which the future is to depend. We have been sold up to the mammon of inequity and unless those on the Government Front Bench get up and reject at once what has been done in America and elsewhere with regard to gold and postwar currency rebuilding will be artless and will be overturned in that it will have been founded on rotten foundations.

Earl Winterton: Following a practice which is so old-fashioned that I almost apologise for it, I have been sitting here throughout this Debate. The modern practice is for hon. Gentlemen to attend countless meetings upstairs, and only after hearing an address upstairs by the President of Kamcachunga to attend the House of Commons; and then, after making a speech, they rush out. That, incidentally, has been a very prominent feature of this Debate. We have had to-day a very interesting cross-section—


if a very banal term may be permitted—of opinion. I would like to sum up that opinion, not, of course, for the instruction of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Postmaster-General, because he wants no instruction, but for my own instruction, or amusement. The Debate began with a characteristically brilliant speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. To his great gifts as an orator were added his love of the traditions of Parliament, and he was at his very best. On the whole, I agreed with what he said; but I do not think that the matter is quite so simple.
I am struck by one point, which I do not think has been brought out in the Debate, except by the hon. Member the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), representing the Independent Labour Party. If ever there was a question for the House of Commons to decide, it is the rebuilding of the House of Commons. This is not, from a general point of view, although it may be from a constitutional point of view, really a matter for His Majesty's Government. It is true—and I want to impress this upon the Postmaster-General and any Cabinet Ministers on the Front Bench—that in a constitutional sense the Government are responsible, but surely, from every canon of commonsense practice, it is for Members to decide this question. If ever there was a domestic question which affected us as an institution, it is the rebuilding of our own House. I do not intend this in an unfriendly way to the Prime Minister, although I am not afraid to be unfriendly to the Prime Minister, or to any other powerful person—and I think anyone who will stand up to such powerful people is to be commended. But we should be careful not to fall into the error of thinking that if a man is in supreme authority, occupying the greatest office in our State, in a time of danger such as this, and if he has tremendous gifts, we should accept everything he says on a purely domestic question without consideration. No one would complain because the right hon. Gentleman has not stayed here after moving his Motion, but I hope that the Postmaster-General will see that the many opinions expressed in the course of this Debate are conveyed to him. I am still in some doubt-about the meaning of this Motion. It starts:
House of Commons Rebuilding.

Then there is something which to me seems excessively funny. Every Motion that we receive has to bear the name not merely of a Socialist and of a Tory, but of a leader of each of those two wings of the great Liberal party. Whether the Motion gains any weight from that may be a matter of opinion. The Motion is:
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon plans for the rebuilding of the House of Commons and upon such alterations as may be considered desirable while preserving all its essential features.
What exactly is the meaning of "the House of Commons" in this sense? It is a term capable of three or four interpretations. To some people, in ordinary parlance, the House of Commons means the whole of the building devoted to the Commons House of Parliament in normal times: the Library, the Dining Room and all the rest of it. Presumably, what the Government had in mind was the rebuilding of the Chamber itself. I do not suppose for a moment that the Government will adopt my suggestion—probably it would be inconvenient to do so at this moment—but I suggest that they could meet the two streams of opinion, which are, in a way, parallel streams, which we have seen in this Debate. The majority opinion, I think, is in favour of rebuilding the old Chamber in more or less the same form, with certain additions. [Interruption.] I spoke of the majority opinion; I was not referring to the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah). He is entitled to his own rather eccentric opinions on this, as on anything else. It seems to me, having listened to the Debate—which is more than the hon. Member for Bilston has done—that the majority of those Members who have spoken favour rebuilding the House in almost the same form.
But there is a very strong opinion, which has been most vividly put by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in favour of doing something to improve the amenities of the House. I do not think that it is pressing an open door or performing an unnecessary task to reinforce what the hon. Gentleman has said, although I cannot put it in better language than he has done. It should go out from this House, not merely from the Labour party but from the Tory party as well, that we want to remove the immense inconvenience of the utterly old-fashioned, archaic amenities which have


been provided for us. I hope that this will not give offence in any quarters. Those of us who are more fortunate than others—if we are fortunate—in the possession of the world's goods realise what a strain it is for the less fortunate to carry on their duties. For instance, the hon. Member for Gorbals referred to the fact that to telephone you have to go to a box telephone, which is by no means confidential. There is no provision for communication with the outside world. Even the Prime Minister, with all his influence, could not resist the will of the House in this matter—I do not think that he would want to. Surely if we had a full-dress Debate on the subject we should have an opportunity of making an overwhelming demand for better amenities, which nobody could deny us.
The House has not lost its future opportunities. This Motion is only for the creation of a Select Committee, to report on some future occasion. The House will have the very fullest opportunity of discussing the subject. Some of us who never act together on normal occasions ought to get together and take such action as is bound to be efficacious, even in face of the strongest Prime Minister—if there is any reason to suppose that the Government are going to ignore what is obviously the will of the House—in pressing that, as far as it is physically possible, the reconstruction of the House outside the Chamber should be dealt with. It is a great pity that the Committee is not authorised to inquire into the amazing anomaly, worthy of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera, concerning the control of this place. The Minister of Works, the Lord Great Chamberlain, you, Mr. Speaker, and the Serjeant at Arms are all so interwoven in the control of this building that nobody knows who is responsible. I have always resented the claim of a certain Court official, to whom I have referred, to have powers over a building in which the Commons House of Parliament sits. I would suggest—though obviously the Postmaster-General could not accept the suggestion now, without the authority of the Prime Minister—that something might be added to the Motion, in more or less the following terms:
and to report what changes are possible and desirable in the re-arrangement of the rest of the Palace of Westminster allocated to this House, with a view to the greater convenience of Members of this House.

If something of that kind could have been added, it would not have interfered with the main purpose of the Government to rebuild the Chamber. They could have had two reports. There could be a report on the rebuilding of the Chamber, and work could start; and then they could deal with the other matters referred to in my suggested addendum. I do not ask my right hon. and gallant Friend for any answer on these points, but I hope that he will give not only me, but the whole House—for we are really at one on this—an assurance that these very important matters which have been raised from all parts of the House, will be given due regard. I hope that he will convey to the Prime Minister the fact that, while we accept entirely what the Prime Minister said in his brilliant speech, this is not a matter for one Government, however powerful. It is a matter of all time; a matter for the House as an institution. A Government is ephemeral: this House is one of the greatest living organisms in this country. I would like to say, if I may without seeming effusive, that we appreciate the action of the Prime Minister in coming down here and delivering such a brilliant speech, and showing such a love for this great institution.

Sir Percy Harris: I want more or less to support the plea of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) for a wider interpretation of the Motion before the House. There is a good deal of confusion over the interpretation of the term "House of Commons". The public outside think of the House of Commons generally as a group of buildings, symbolised by Big Ben, flanking the river alongside Westminster Bridge. I gather that the Prime Minister's interpretation is limited to the Chamber. I understand that my Noble Friend wants this Committee, which I hope will be a representative one, to take a much wider interpretation of their terms of reference, and not to be limited to the actual debating Chamber. It is very important that facilities for the Press, for instance, and all the other matters we have discussed to-day, should be included in the terms of reference. But the amenities and convenience of Members will require very much broader consideration by the Committee. Recently I had an opportunity to visit the Dominion of Canada. They had, it will be remembered,


towards the end of the last war, a big fire which burnt down their Parliament buildings, which required complete reconstruction. In the spirit of this House, they desired their Houses of Parliament to be rebuilt on the same traditions as this House, which had been followed when their original building was erected, but they took the opportunity to add enormously to the facilities for Members of that House. The Chamber suffers, I believe, from many of the faults which we want to avoid. It is too big, and the acoustics are bad, and, owing to its size and general planning, they do not have that intimate discussion and Debate across the Floor of the House such as we want to preserve and which the Prime Minister emphasised, though each Member has a separate desk, and having an allotted seat, there is not a struggle to put cards in their place or the necessity to be present at Prayers. Superficially, Dominion Members are much the better provided for than hon. Members are here. Anybody who has been there will agree with me that the character of Parliament has changed, the speeches are of a more forensic character and are addressed not so much to Members on the opposite side but much more to the Press and public outside which is the very thing we want to avoid.
They have one great advantage as a result of their rebuilding from which we might get some inspiration and guidance. In Canada, following the example of Congress, each Member—it may surprise hon. Members who have not visited that country and have not read about it—is provided with a room to himself and a secretary. I am not going to suggest such a revolution as that. We are so accustomed to being uncomfortable that we would think that something was wrong if we had a convenience of that kind provided, but I do not see why, when the Select Committee is set up, it should be prohibited from investigating whether better facilities could be provided for Private Members. It is all right if you become a Minister. You have your private room in the House and your own office in Whitehall. I am fortunate myself, as I hold some sort of position and have a private room and a room for a secretary, but at least 500 hon. Members have no accommodation at all and have to struggle for places in the Library, and at

times they cannot even find a place where they can write their letters. Without altering the essential character of this building, it should not be beyond the wit of man to provide the proper accommodation for hon. Members, first, to carry on their correspondence—a very important part of their duties—with their constituents and the public outside, and secondly, to receive visitors instead of having to meet them in the Lobbies or in St. Stephen's Hall. I see no reason why St. Stephen's House opposite or even the new building it is proposed to erect in Parliament Square should not be designed for, and belong to, Parliament in order to provide facilities for Members to carry on their correspondence and do their personal work. I wish to secure some sort of assurance that the Government will consider giving as much latitude to the Committee as possible, and in spite of the eloquence of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) the House of Commons should continue to be on the banks of the river in Westminster where it has been for hundreds of years, and where it is the centre of the British Commonwealth. I do not agree with him at all in his argument that Parliament should sit in a rarified atmosphere in a gentleman's park where we would be away from the stream of public opinion and out of contact with the public.

Mr. Maxton: Bethnal Green is only 20 minutes' run from Westminster, which is 420 miles from Bridgeton.

Sir P. Harris: It would not be any nearer for the hon. Member if it was in a gentleman's park. This building should house the Houses of Parliament, and the debating Chamber should remain the same, but I hope the Committee will not be prohibited from inquiring into the problem of whether the convenience of Members can be improved in any way without getting into trouble because of the terms of reference.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: My only object at the conclusion of this Debate in which Private Members have taken part is to offer one thought which is the result of 19 years' experience in the House of Commons, and that is the value of atmosphere. There has been something in the atmosphere of the whole House and of the surroundings as a whole


that has managed to discover the best that is even in the worst of us. I, and most other hon. Members, have seen great reforming spirits come down to this House as new Members. They have come possibly from the Clyde and the Tyne and from Ipswich, where they have been inspired or embittered by social injustices prevailing in their own districts. They come with an exaggerated idea of what they are determined to do, sometimes even to destroy not only the constitutional structure but the material structure of our Chamber. I have watched for years and seen the way the atmosphere has got hold of these wild spirits, has tamed them and brought them into a constitutional frame of mind in which they become proud of the structure, of the atmosphere and of the constitutional methods adopted by this ancient Mother of Parliaments. I agree with some of the criticisms which have been made, although on the whole I am entirely behind the Prime Minister in the outline of what we should do. Whatever may be the future and whatever the Select Committee may decide, I hope they will try and preserve, as far as possible, that atmosphere which has enabled the negotiations, consultations and Debates in this House to be conducted in the interests of and the advancement of our people.

Captain De Chair: It is more than a year since I spoke in this House, because I belong to the Dumb Chums' League who sit behind the Government Front Bench, which makes freedom of expression somewhat difficult. I agree with the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) that this is essentially a House of Commons matter, and, having listened to the greater part of the Debate, it would be true to say there has been a growing uneasiness among Members of the House in approaching this problem. We were swept off our feet by that brilliant speech of the Prime Minister, and I feel the House finds itself in the position of the bashful maiden being approached by a rather dashing lover who sweeps her off her feet at the first moment and afterwards wonders whether it was so wise to have said "Yes" so quickly. What worries hon. Members on all sides of the House is that the terms of the Motion are so limited. Those of us who listened to the Prime Minister cannot but have felt that he has set his heart upon reconstructing the whole Chamber exactly as it had been

for 40 years during which he had known it. We must remember that the old Chamber is not part of the historic Houses of Parliament dating from the time of William Rufus. There is nothing sacrosanct about the Victorian Gothic era, and while it is natural that one who, like the Prime Minister, has grown up in that environment and who, as he showed in his remarks, regards it as home, should feel a sentimental attachment towards it, but that does not say that it is necessarily the best environment in which the Debates of this Assembly should be conducted. It was all very well for him, as Prime Minister, to envisage a return to the old conditions, because the Prime Minister of the day or the Cabinet Minister is assured by his distinguished Parliamentary Private Secretary at the last moment when the stage is set, that his seat is waiting. The gap is there. That is not the lot of the private Member.
I well remember the first occasion, now eight years ago, when I tried to get a seat in this House. The new Parliament had met. There was great eagerness on the part of all to get seats. But were there seats for all? Not at all. I remember that I fulfilled the precepts of my predecessor to get here early on the day of the opening of Parliament. I arrived at 6 o'clock in the morning, and even then I had been preceded by the noble Lady the Member for Plymouth (Vis-countess Astor) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), whom I found camped in front of the door. The moment the doors were opened at 8 o'clock I stampeded with the rest to get a seat, and I adopted the procedure which is familiar to us but which nevertheless is perhaps not so familiar to those outside the House. This procedure whereby one has to place a card upon the seat he hopes to occupy at a later stage gives one no real guarantee that even if he gets up at 6 o'clock in the morning he will in fact hear the great Budget Debate from that seat. What happened to me? I was young and athletic, possibly more athletic than I am today. I reached the seat I had earmarked in good time, but I had hardly sat upon it when there cannoned into me from the side an enormous body—that of the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Captain Plugge), who, I am afraid, is not in the House today but who has lost nothing of his weight and importance as the years go by. He said, "I intend to


take this seat for the rest of this Parliament." I said, "I was here first," and he replied, "I know you were here first. To-day we will share it, but thereafter I propose to get up, if necessary, at 6 o'clock every morning in order to secure this seat." My first experience was not sufficient to encourage me to enter into that competition, and I believe the hon. and gallant Member has occupied that seat up to this day.
I mention that as an indication of the total inadequacy of the accommodation for Members in the House. When the House overflowed, as on many occasions it did, hon. Members had to sit in the galleries on either side, where, I believe, they had the constitutional right to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, but it was not easy to catch your eye from so high up. In point of fact it was not often done, and many an interruption which might perhaps have altered the history of the world went unspoken because the Member did not find himself at the psychological moment on the Floor of the House. There was also the difficulty of no ventilation and no proper lighting, which made the lot of Members very unpleasant and uncomfortable, and although we gathered from the Prime Minister's speech that all this may be put right in the rebuilding of the House, nevertheless, the mere fact of being tied down to re-build it within the same walls is going to place great limitations upon the kind of improvements that can be made. I have seen admirals come into this House red in the face from the quarterdeck and within a week they were as white as a lily from the lack of ventilation.
The Prime Minister, in a pregnant phrase, said, "We shape our buildings and our buildings shape us." That is very true, but do they shape us so very well? They shaped the Parliaments which twice failed to prevent world wars and shaped the Parliament of Mr., now Lord, Baldwin, which kept the present Prime Minister out of office for a number of years. We may not, therefore, conclude that the type of building we had before will necessarily produce the most sparkling Legislatures in the future. Some have said, "We should rebuild on the same place and ignore the fact that it was destroyed." Why not rebuild London as it was before

the blitz? London was, admittedly, a picturesque jumble of houses, but to-day an opportunity has arisen, which may never occur again, to build a new London more in tune with the opening vistas of contemporary thought. The same thing applies to the present Palace of Westminster. An hon. Member opposite, who represents a London Division, said that contemporary architecture was bad. But all architecture has to start somewhere. After all, St. Paul's was built by Sir Christopher Wren, and no doubt people at that time said that it probably would not survive the test of time. It has stood it very well and is likely to become a predominant feature of future plans for the development of London.
I cannot see any argument for those who say that we should risk nothing, that there is a well-worn path for us to follow. The Motion proposes that we should follow that path again, take the safe course and go back to where we were. I only hope that the Government will see their way to eliminate the restricting words at the end of the Motion:
… while preserving all its essential features.
I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) will press his Amendment to eliminate those words. Otherwise if this Motion is carried and the Select Committee is set up, it will inevitably, after the first few preliminary discussions, work along the groove which the Prime Minister indicated to-day, with the result that we shall find ourselves with a replica of the Chamber we all knew so well. I hope they will look into the future and not merely to the past, and I hope that the Amendment will be pressed, so that we may have an opportunity of allowing to the Select Committee an absolutely unfettered decision on what is purely a House of Commons matter.

Mr. Mathers: I am in agreement with the Motion before the House, although I, like many other Members, hope it will be widely interpreted. I rise for the purpose of making one point which in my hearing—and I have listened to most of the Debate—has not yet been made. I, too, very much enjoyed the Prime Minister's speech—it was delightful—but I thought he had in his mind a much too clear picture of the future in regard to the provision of a House of


Commons Chamber. I hope that that picture will not be allowed to colour too much the opinions of the members of the Select Committee. What struck me particularly about the Prime Minister's speech was his reference to the stone that would be required for rebuilding. He stated that the quarry from which this building of Sir Charles Barrie was built over a 100 years ago would have to be reopened. In the light of our past experience I hope this question of the stone that is required will be fully borne in mind because hundreds of thousands of pounds have been expended in recent years in repairing the Palace of Westminster because the stone from that quarry has not been able to stand up to the London climate. I am not suggesting that the character of the building should be departed from sufficiently to allow it to be built of stone that would stand any climate, say, Aberdeen granite. I realise the importance of using stone which is in keeping with the present building. It seems that during recent times we have not had the knowledge of stone that was possessed by those who built the monuments of many, many years ago and which are standing to-day. For instance, the monks who were responsible for our great abbeys seem to have known far more than we do to-day—

Mr. Maxton: Three cheers for the past.

Mr. Mathers: The hon. Member, facetiously, says, "Three cheers for the past." I can take him to Melrose Abbey, three miles from my birthplace, and show him something that can be cheered. That building with its delicate decoration has not eroded to any extent at all since it was erected in the 13th century. It is that sort of art we seem to have lost. Therefore, I hope the Prime Minister's reference to the Clipsham Quarry and its stone will not be taken too literally by those who have a decision to make and that we shall make sure that what has happened to this building will not be likely to happen to the new Chamber when it is erected.

The Postmaster-General (Captain Crookshank): I have not very much to say to the House beyond summing up the Debate, but first of all I must express to right hon. and hon. Members the great regret of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that he could not be here to listen

to all that has been said. I need hardly assure my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) that I will take the opportunity of seeing that my right hon. Friend is fully acquainted with the views which have been expressed. It is quite clear that this is a House of Commons matter, and from that point of view it has been an extremely good House of Commons Debate. I am quite sure that what has been said here to-day will be of assistance to the Select Committee when it is set up, because it will have before it the views of Members of different parties, of different ages and different lengths of service in the House. I stand rather in a middle position, this being the beginning of my 20th year—nothing like the stage the Noble Lord has passed—but with a longer experience of the old Chamber than some Members who have taken part in the Debate. But I would assure them all that, though the Motion has got as a matter of practice to come before the House in the name of the Prime Minister and the other Ministers whose names are on the Order Paper, as representing the different political aspects of the Government, of course Ministers are just as much Members of Parliament as anyone else, and they all have their own views on many of the topics that have been raised to-day. I am not proposing to urge my own personal views on this occasion, but I have sympathy with a great deal of what has been said.
By and large, most Members are agreeable to the suggestions which the Prime Minister has made in a speech which will certainly become a classic. He laid down two premises, one about shape and one about size, in the sense of not being so big that everyone would automatically have a seat. He went on from that to make suggestions which he hoped, as a Member of Parliament and as Leader of the House, the Committee would adhere to. If the Committee does not adhere to them, that is for the Committee itself to decide, but on size there was a slight difference of opinion, because some Members took the view that it was uncomfortable to get up and speak and find the benches empty. Many other Members would say it is uncomfortable to sit down and listen and find the benches full, because there is no place upon which they can rest. But, by and large, what the Prime Minister said about the accommodation


was acceptable to most of the subsequent speakers.
With regard to locality, the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) did not get very enthusiastic support for his proposal. Most of us feel that Westminster is the place where Parliament should sit. It was born there, and it has sat there for many centuries. [Interruption.] It was born there for all practical purposes. The hon. Member appears to have gone all suburban. He outlined what seemed to be a glorified roadhouse somewhere, a cross between the late Crystal Palace, a civil airport and Waterloo Station, situated in the surroundings of a Chatsworth, most inconvenient for Members who have to work there, inconvenient for keeping in contact with Government Departments, because if they all removed there the wonderful parkland surroundings would no longer remain, most inconvenient for the Press, about whose comfort so much has been said, and most inconvenient for the general public, who we are sure will want to attend our Debates in great numbers. I do not know for whom it would be convenient, but no one has enthusiastically supported the hon. Member, and I think it was one of the jests to which he sometimes treats the House.

Mr. Maxton: I do not think that is fair.

Captain Crookshank: I do not want to offend the hon. Member. May I put it that the Select Committee will, no doubt, look into it?

Mr. Maxton: I sketched in very general terms certain things which I thought could be done in the post-war politics of the world. I urged the Prime Minister to alter the terms of reference so that alternative schemes could be considered. It is to use the right hon. and gallant Gentleman saying the Select Committee can consider my proposals, because they are debarred from considering them by the terms of the Motion.

Captain Crookshank: I am sorry. I made a mistake. One does sometimes. I was carried away by the hon. Member's eloquence. There was some difference of opinion about the need for fresh amenities, rather smaller details, perhaps, connected with the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East St. Pancras (Sir A. Beit) asked whether there would be

latitude for the Committee to interpret its terms of reference as to what was to be covered by the words "essential features." Of course, it is for the Select Committee to interpret for itself the terms of reference, and it would be most improper for me to give them guidance. [Interruption.] If there are terms of reference given to any Committee, the Committee must interpret them itself.

Earl Winterton: I should like to assure my right hon. and gallant Friend that he is completely wrong. It is the duty of a Government, when proposing a Motion to the House, to say what in their opinion are the functions laid down for a Select Committee. I asked if they include the right to consider other parts of the House besides the Chamber.

Captain Crookshank: The Noble Lord is so impatient. Points of smaller detail, such as ventilation and lighting, are what I had in mind. I am not on the Noble Lord's bigger issue. I will come to that in a moment.

Sir A. Beit: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend consider the architecture of the building a smaller issue? That is one of the things that I specifically asked, and the Prime Minister has made it clear that it is one of the things on which his mind is made up.

Captain Crookshank: The architecture is not a detail at all. Then there has been some difference of opinion as between my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) and others. I said earlier that the Prime Minister had given a general view of what he, as Leader of the House, thought would be a good line of approach, and, by and large, the House has accepted that. The Noble Lord will see from the Prime, Minister's speech what he had in mind with regard to the terms of reference.

Earl Winterton: This is a matter which we really must inquire into. Every speaker has asked whether it is a fact that in the opinion of the Government the terms of the Motion are so framed that, in addition to considering the reconstruction of the Chamber itself, it can take into account the reconstruction of other parts of the House, which every Member has said should be undertaken.

Captain Crookshank: I am sorry, but it is so difficult. I have notes to make what I thought would be a consecutive speech. I have that point on the next page. I told the Noble Lord sotto voce that I was coming to it in due course. If the House prefers a disjointed speech, I am prepared to be disjointed, but I am sorry that my speech will not be the logical oration that I meant it to be. To answer that point specifically, of course during the Debate a good many things have been said regarding amenities for Members—accommodation for Members, better rooms, criticism of the refreshment rooms downstairs, better telephones, better writing tables, better almost everything. All that has to do with the general amenities of life at Westminster. My answer to that would be that so far as this Select Committee is being set up for rebuilding the House of Commons, that is to say, rebuilding what has been destroyed, these various points are not strictly relevant. Rebuilding the House of Commons is one thing, rearranging all the internal affairs of this building, upon which, as is quite obvious, most hon. Members feel very strongly, is another thing. I am dealing with this proposed Select Committee. The Noble Lord said in his speech—I think I have his exact words—that the majority want rebuilding, more or less, of the old Chamber—this was his summing-up of the Debate—and that a strong majority is in favour of improving the amenities for Members. The second point, while it has been rightly the subject of discussion to-day, has not really and in fact to do with the actual rebuilding, but in view of what has been said—

Mr. Maxton: We have asked for an extension of the amenities in the old building.

Captain Crookshank: The Select Committee's terms of reference do not deal with amenities, but the rebuilding of what was destroyed. I do not think the Prime Minister, when he made his opening speech, had appreciated that the Debate—after all, Debates do move along—was going to take this particular line. He addressed himself entirely to the narrower question of rebuilding what was destroyed, and it was about that which he spoke, and it is about that specifically that this Select Committee is to be asked to undertake its work, but in view of what has been said the first thing I shall do will be to tell the Prime Minister exactly

what Members of this House—and this is a House of Commons matter—feel about it, and then we shall see what happens. It may not be at all desirable, on the principle of doing first things first. After all, the most important thing is to get back the Chamber, in which we can work again. [Interruption.] Well, there are reasons why it is not possible to trespass over long on the hospitality extended to us by the other place, and that was dealt with in the Prime Minister's speech. All I can do in view of the turn which the Debate took—at the beginning of my speech I conveyed the apology of the Prime Minister that he could not be present—is to explain what has been said on these various matters. So far as the Select Committee is concerned it is to deal, according to these terms of reference, with the actual rebuilding of what has been destroyed—and that is the House of Commons—as opposed to the general amenities and changes which may or may not be desirable in the Palace of Westminster generally, which is not the same thing.
I hope I have satisfied hon. Members—I am only here to try to do that—and having done it now in an illogical speech as a result of the Noble Lord's intervention, I will go back and answer my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), who was really the only hon. Member who took the line that it was most inopportune to attempt to rebuild any part of this destroyed area. All I have to say in answer to that is that to judge from the Debate, of which I have heard every word, no one else takes that view. Hon. Members did think we should rebuild in due course, I am not saying to-morrow morning, but before you rebuild you have to consider the plans. I would remind hon. Members that this is not a matter in which the Government, apart from putting down the Motion for the Select Committee, can take any initiative. It is not for us to do it. In other fields we are being pressed to get on with our plans quicker and quicker, and therefore why should we not suggest to the House that on its own responsibility it should at least consider planning for its own purposes? We cannot do it for the House, and that is the reason why the thing has to come before the House in this form, in view of the necessity for time in a matter like this. After all, a report has to be carefully prepared by those of


our colleagues who will be on the Committee, and so I do not think it is untimely that it should be set up now. There is nothing irrevocable in what we are doing to-day. The Committee is not set up: the names of the hon. Members who will be proposed to the House will come before the House in due course. The Committee will then require to take evidence and make its own plans. Its report will come before the House and the House will have the opportunity to study it and to make up its mind on what is recommended by its own colleagues.

Mr. Maxton: We are setting a limit to its work.

Captain Crookshank: A limit with regard to the point of the actual rebuilding. With regard to the other things, I undertake to report to the Prime Minister what has been said for his consideration in the light of the Debate. I see that the Prime Minister is now present, and I am indeed fortunate that I shall not have to make this speech all over again to him. I must remind hon. Members that there is nothing irrevocable in taking the first vague, faltering steps along the road in order to get a new Chamber in which we are to work.

Mr. Driberg: From a purely practical and architectural point of view, does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman think it will be easy or possible for the Select Committee to plan the actual structural rebuilding without considering the shape and the functions and so forth of the rooms inside that building—the rooms, apart from the Chamber itself?

Captain Crookshank: I should not think there was any difficulty in knowing the shape and function of the House of Commons—the shape is oblong and the function is to deliberate. The Prime Minister, addressing the House earlier, did suggest that we should adhere firmly to the characteristics of the old Chamber, and by and large hon. Members who

Division No. 28.
AYES.



Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Brooke, H. (Lewisham)


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)


Albery, Sir Irving
Beechman, N. A.
Bull, B. B.


Ammon, C. G.
Benson, G.
Burden, T. W.


Apsley, Lady
Boothby, R. J. G.
Butcher, Lieut. H. W.


Assheton, R.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. (Cleveland)
Cadogan, Maj. Sir E.


Barstow, P. G.
Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Carver, Colonel W. H.

have spoken have agreed with that, and the noble Lord has endorsed it as being the view of the majority of the speakers. The hon. Member for Bridgeton says the old House had no great record of antiquity. It is true that it was only about 100 years old but it is also true that it came into use shortly after the Reform Act and saw very many changes, and it died in the battle which the democracy which that Reform Act had largely helped to shape is fighting against tyranny. If we are lucky in the forties of this century there will arise a new Chamber. What its future will be we cannot tell, but we do know that a House, any House, does not necessarily make an institution any more than clothes make men. It is the experience that surrounds it which counts for something. It affected the actions of men. After all, Parliament is built on custom, on history and on precedent, and yet new precedents are being made all the time as we move forward year by year. This Select Committee may wish, for all I know, to create precedents itself. On the other hand, it may not. All we can do, if the House is prepared to accept this Motion, and judging by the Debate it is, is to await the result of the labours of this Select Committee, which will certainly be much helped by this Debate. All we can do then is to hope that our colleagues who will undertake this job, an important, responsible, difficult and weighty job, will be given wisdom and understanding to solve the problem aright, to produce a report which then can go forward, and that we can build up not all that we have lost but something which will be equally valuable for the future.

Question put:
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon plans for the rebuilding of the House of Commons and upon such alterations as may be considered desirable while preserving all its essential features.

The House divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 3.

Cary, R. A.
Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.
Rankin, Sir R.


Channon, H.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)


Churchill, Rt. Hn. Winston S. (Ep'ing)
Hopkinson, A.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Cobb, Captain E. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Riley, B.


Critchley, A.
Jeffreys, Gen. Sir G. D.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)


Culverwell, C. T.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)
Selley, H. R.


Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Denville, Alfred
Leas-Jones, J.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Drewe, C.
Leslie, J. R.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.


Dugdale, Major T. L. (Richmond)
Levy, T.
Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.


Eccles, D. M.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Ladywood)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McEntee, V. La T.
Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.


Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)
McNeil, H.
Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)


Everard, Sir W. Lindsay
Making, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Thomas, I. (Keighley)


Furness, Major S. N.
Mander, G. le M.
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)


Gammans, Capt. L. D.
Marshall, F.
Touche, G. C.


Glyn, Sir R. G. C.
Martin, J. H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Comdr. R. L.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Mathers, G.
Viant, S. P.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Greenwell, Colonel T. G.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gretton, J. F.
Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. H. (Richmond)


Grigg, Sir E. W. M. (Altrincham)
Petherick, Major M.
White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)


Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Pethick-Lawrenee, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Guy, W. H.
Peto, Major B. A. J.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hammersley, S. S.
Price, M. P.
Woolley, Major W. E.


Hannah, I. C.
Procter, Major H. A.
Wright, Mrs. Beatrice F. (Bodmin)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Pym, L. R.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Quibell, D. J. K.



Headlam, Lt.-Col. Sir C. M.
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—




Mr. Boulton and Capt. McEwen.




NOES.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Maxton, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Buchanan, G.

Capt. De Chair and




Mr. McGovern.

WATER UNDERTAKINGS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Ammon: On a point of Order. Am I in Order in asking what the Government intend to do about this next Business, which is highly contentious? There is a good deal of feeling in the House of Commons with regard to it.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): There is no intention to make contentious progress with this Water Bill, which seems to excite so much heat; but my right hon. Friend would like to make his Second Reading speech, opening the matter to the House. It may be that that will calm rather than excite passion and facilitate the future progress of the Bill. I suggest that we get on with that, without prejudice to any future discussion.

Mr. Ammon: I will readily accept what the right hon. Gentleman says but I am sure there will be hot water.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
We must try to do what we can to provide the necessary oil. I can assure the House that I do not think that we shall find the Bill as contentious as some Members appear to think. I would rather describe it as a purely useful Bill, though I have observed in my time in the House, and I expect other hon. Members will share my memory, that it is sometimes one of the hardest things in Parliamentary life to get a useful Bill through. I would describe this as a utility Bill without any turn-ups at all, a useful Bill, not a major Bill in terms of policy but important in regard both to the consolidation and modernisation of water law. It is important also, because however varied views may be in the House about the future development of our water resources, I think this Bill can be nothing but useful because it will clear the ground. It will consolidate the law, which has not been altered since 1863, and will make the law clear.
This Bill, as I will point out a little later, is the result of long and arduous labours. Let me make quite clear that it has nothing to do with any alteration of major policy and it does nothing to interfere with any view about major post-war policy that will arise. I do not doubt we shall have in the new Session, or later, big Debates on other reports of the Central Advisory Water Committee, presided over with such ability by Field Marshal Lord Milne. I have no doubt there will be many views about that. These things are not for us to discuss to-day, except in general terms, because of course the First and Third Reports of the Committee are before the Government and the Government now has them under consideration.
I would say that the aim of this useful Bill is to consolidate in one Act the general law regulating the supply of water by statutory water undertakers in England and Wales. It is to add the most suitable of the common form provisions usually included in modern local Acts as a result of our experience and it is, as I said at the beginning, to provide a consolidated and modernised water works law which would apply generally, as far as this is possible, to statutory water undertakings. Perhaps I had better tell the House, to put it on record, how many water undertakings there are now. The total number at the moment is—local authority undertakings, including joint boards, over 850; statutory companies to the number of 150; and non-statutory companies to the number of 80; the total being about 1,100. Local authorities supply about 80 per cent. of the population served.
There has been no general revision of the law regulating the supply of water by local act water undertakings since 1863 and there has been no comprehensive revision since the Water Undertakings Clauses Act of 1847. This Bill is based on the work of the Government's Central Advisory Water Committee, generally known as the Milne Committee. The Committee was, I may remind the House, appointed in 1937 by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Kingsley Wood, after consultation with other Ministers, to advise Government Departments, not merely mine, on water policy. For the purposes of this work of consolidation the House may be interested to know there

were added to the Committee Sir Frederick Liddell and Mr. G. R. Hill, who have very special skill in all these matters.
The Milne Committee pointed out in their report that the conditions affecting public water supplies have changed greatly since the Acts of 1847 and 1863 and that their scope is quite inadequate to present-day conditions. Of course, this is within the experience of Members of the House. Those who have taken part in the old days in long-drawn-out Committee work upstairs will know that we have had to overcome the drawbacks arising from these inadequate powers to some extent by Parliament's conferring special powers in local Acts to enable water undertakings to deal with conditions not covered by the general Acts. The time has, however, clearly come when general legislation, designed on the basis of the past intervening years and based on both the general and the local Acts, ought to be carried in order to secure the uniformity and continuity of practice which is desirable, and I think most Members would consider essential, for such an important service as public water supply. Indeed looking over the field I should say that the Bill is very long overdue. I claim that it does for water legislation what was done for public health legislation in the Public Health Act, 1936, and for local government in the Local Government Act, 1933.
The present Bill, the provisions of which I will deal with in a few moments, was introduced first in another place in 1939. It was then exhaustively considered by a Joint Select Committee of the two Houses in sessions extending over six days. Lord Onslow was the chairman and there were six other members from another place and seven from this House. Two of them I regret to say have since died, the late Sir Francis Fremantle and the late Mr. John Rathbone. The other Members are with us and will be able to add their knowledge of the technical work done by that Committee in the course of the future stages of the Bill. The Bill was passed by the Lords and then the war held it up. Now I am bringing it forward in the hope that the House, when the air has been cleared and we have explained what it really means, will speed it on its way. The Bill as reintroduced in Parliament this year is the same Bill, subject to some minor amendments


of a drafting character made when it appeared the second time, and it comes to this House with a small number of further Amendments made in another place.
The Milne Committee expressed the view, which Members will find on page 3, para. 7 of their First Report, that
We consider that legislation to carry out the recommendations contained in the Underground Water and Planning Reports should not be promoted prior to the passing of a Consolidation Bill.
It is quite clear that the Committee thought this consolidation useful, and indeed essential, work. I hope that the House will agree that this is the way we ought to proceed in dealing with reconstruction in the matter of water supplies. We must also consider sewerage when we come to matters of policy. That was the Committee's view, and the Government share that view. From that angle, the Bill is to be regarded as a necessary tidying-up process. The Government hope in due course to bring forward more far-reaching proposals; and in framing those proposals, they will have before them, among other things, the important recommendations made by Lord Milne's Committee in their First Report, for comprehensive legislation covering such matters as central control of exploitation of limited underground water resources; securing, where necessary for efficiency, groupings and amalgamations of undertakings; and dealing also with such matters as better arrangement, better conservation and protection of our water resources, and more efficient and economical distribution of supplies, both for industry and agriculture as well as for the domestic consumer.
There are, of course, those who advocate much more sweeping changes. The time to discuss them, I suggest, will be when we bring forward a Bill to deal with major policy, after the Government have considered the Milne Reports and come to their own conclusion. I should say, however, that the Government are mindful of the desirability, on general grounds of health and amenity, of some further extensions after the war of piped supplies of water in rural areas and of consequential sewerage facilities. They will consider sympathetically, at the appropriate stage, whether it is possible to ease the financial burden of the capital cost of schemes for

sizeable groups of houses. In 1934 and the following years water supply schemes in rural areas were carried out in just under 2,000 parishes with help from the Exchequer; and this help produced schemes to the total value of about £7,000,000. I mention that now to show that it is not outwith the Government's mind, as they say in Scotland, to show that there is no ground for supposing that this useful Bill—which, viewed against the background of major policy, is little, but important—is regarded by the Government as being by any means all that is wanted, or as anything more than the first measure for clearing the ground for a full water policy. The House will see that this Bill does not prejudice the shape of things to come or tie the Government or the House in any way as regards any future Bill for securing better planning, better conservation, and better protection of water resources and supplies.

Mr. Ammon: Is then? any intention of bringing forward future Bills?

Mr. Brown: I have said that we have the Reports under the closest consideration, and I cannot imagine any replanned or reconstructed future in this country without better water supplies in the rural areas, and without facing the major issues which are brought up in the Milne Reports.

Mr. McEntee: Some of us have urged that ever since we came into the House, many years ago.

Mr. Brown: I hope that my hon. Friend will help me as far as he can. The present Bill is divided into a main part, consisting of 26 Clauses of general application, and three Schedules. It includes an important simplification of the procedure of the Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870, and of the Public Health Act in that provided—and this is important—that there is no opposition by interested local authorities or other persons affected, powers for the carrying on of water undertakings will in future he obtainable by Order of the Minister of Health. The existing procedure, dating from 1870, by which all Orders are provisional, even where there is no opposition, is out of date and unnecessarily expensive and rigid; and the proposed simplification will benefit both the consumers and the undertakers, and save an immense amount of Parliamentary


time, as well as other time. Clause 1 makes very full provision for publicity in the "London Gazette" and in local newspapers, so that anyone wishing to raise objection can have an opportunity of putting his or her case fully at a local inquiry, before any Order is made. Where opposition has been expressed and it is not withdrawn, the Orders will be provisional as before, and will require definite confirmation by Parliament. The proposed simplification in procedure does not extend to the major powers of the compulsory acquisition of land or water rights. They are expressly excluded from these arrangements, under Clause I; so it will still be necessary for water undertakers to promote their own Bills for these purposes.
The main part of the Bill also reproduces, with some minor alterations, the Supply of Water in Bulk Act, 1934, and the Water Companies Act, 1887, and gives us a simple procedure, based on provisions frequently allowed in modern local Acts, for the revision of water rates and charges. I am sure the House will regard this as a very valuable addition to our law. Provision is included for the protection of public water supplies from the risk of pollution, and powers which will facilitate the supply of water to rural areas. The First and main Schedule contains 107 Clauses. They include the replacement of the Act of 1847 and the Act of 1863, and, in addition, new Clauses based on the most suitable of the provisions extending those Acts which are commonly included in modern Acts. It is proposed in Part X of the Schedule that the existing right of the consumer to break up the street for the purpose of laying a communication pipe between his premises and the water main should be transferred to the water undertakers, and then there should also be transferred to the undertakers not only the right but the cost of maintaining and renewing the communication pipe. Members with whom I have been in correspondence about that, will be glad to see that point in the Bill. Clause 21 provides for the incorporation of the First Schedule with every future water Act or Order after next Session; but, in order to meet special local circumstances, provision is made for any necessary exceptions and modifications. Further, the Schedule may be applied by the Minister, first, at any time on the

application of the undertakers; second, on his own motion after the expiry of five years from the end of the "emergency." In the original Bill of 1939 this five years began to run from the passing of the Act, instead of the end of the war, but the Bill has now been amended in another place to make reasonable allowance for war disturbances.
One particular matter which I should like to deal with is that of public access to moorland and open country. A good deal of public interest has been aroused in this subject. Fear has been expressed that this Bill interferes in some new way with the rights of rambling clubs and other members of the public to get healthy exercise and recreation. Attention has been drawn, quite naturally, to what are known as the Birmingham Clauses, under which the public have statutory rights of access to a large part of the water gathering grounds, of, for example, the Birmingham and Manchester Corporations. I can assure the House that I yield to no man in my belief in the value of rambling and other forms of outdoor exercise—and not in speech only. There is no question whatever of making use of any of the powers in this Bill to exclude the public from walking over land where they can do so without detriment to water supplies. The fear of wholesale exclusions is entirely unfounded, and I am not asking for any new powers in this regard in this Bill. We have had most friendly discussions with those who speak for what I may call the rambling and amenity interests and I can assure the House that there is no difference whatever between us in principle. They, for their part, are as much alive as I am to the importance of avoiding the risk of water-borne disease, notably the scourge of typhoid, and I for my part am, as I have said, a wholehearted supporter of fresh air and exercise. Bound up with this question is a somewhat technical question relating to the extinction of commoners' rights. This is the subject of an Amendment already on the Paper and perhaps I may clear the air by saying that at the appropriate moment I intend to advise the House to accept that Amendment, together with another one bearing on the more general issue of the Birmingham Clauses to which I referred just now. I hope that that will allay some of the fears and when the


Committee stage comes the House can probe it to the full.
It is clear that Amendments of an extensive and far-reaching character, while not technically outside the scope of the Bill, are obviously more appropriate to the subsequent Measure to which I have referred, dealing with questions of policy. Failure to secure—or to propose—Amendments of that nature in this Bill, which is primarily a consolidation and minor Amendment Bill, would not prejudice consideration of them when the Government's full proposals are made known.
I see a Motion on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) and others and I would like to say a word about that in conclusion. The Motion begins by referring to the national importance of water supply and with that I am in most cordial agreement. It is one of the glories of this country that, thanks mainly to early and unremitting attention to our public water supply, we can proudly say that in freedom from typhoid and allied water-borne diseases we are ahead of every other country in the world. There is none that can equal us. But the Motion goes on to suggest that this present Bill, which is a preparatory and primarily a consolidation Bill, ought to be rejected because it perpetuates the existing multiplicity of undertakings and thus, the Motion asserts, prejudices the efficient organisation of water supply. I hope it is clear from what I have said that that is a misapprehension based on a complete misunderstanding of what the Bill in fact does. It consolidates and codifies the present law and simplifies procedure. Hon. Members may ask that the number of undertakings shall be reduced and I have considerable sympathy with the view that much could be achieved by a reduction of the number of undertakings. What can be a more useful preparatory piece of work than a Bill like this? A Bill which endeavours to put on as uniform a basis as practicable the relations between undertakings and consumers, the rights of the consumer against the undertaker and the rights of the undertaker against the consumer, and the relations between the undertakers and the multifarious other interests with whom they have to deal, such as highway authorities. I have almost

completed my speech and so I think I had better sit down.

Ordered, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Debate to be resumed upon the next Sitting Day.

DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I beg to move,
That the Clearing Office (Italy) Amendment Order, 1943, dated 8th October, 1943, made by the Treasury under Sections I and 3 of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on 12th October, be approved.
In July, 1936, when sanctions were raised against Italy there were considerable arrears of trade debts which were due to creditors in the United Kingdom in respect of goods which had been imported into Italy before sanctions were imposed. The Anglo-Italian Clearing Office was set up under Section I of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, and into that was paid, in sterling, money which was due by United Kingdom debtors for goods of Italian origin imported into the United Kingdom. In November, 1936, an agreement was reached with the Italian Government which provided for the distribution of the sterling received by the Clearing. This was modified by a subsequent agreement which was made in 1938, and that modified agreement automatically came to an end when Italy came into the war, but the Treasury Orders giving effect to the agreement did not. No further distribution of sterling to British creditors took place, but the Articles of the Orders providing for payment for Italian goods to be paid into the Clearing still remain in force. They applied during the war only to debts voluntarily contracted before the war. The sterling amounts in the Clearing at the outbreak of the war, and subsequent additions to those amounts, must, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, be paid into the account of the Custodian of Enemy Property. The Order which is now before Parliament and which the House is asked to confirm is to exempt future transactions from the operation of the Clearing until it is possible to make further arrangements which may be suitable


in the change of circumstances for dealing with payments arising out of any renewed trade there may be between Italy and this country. Such trade at the present time is confined to trade on behalf of Government Departments.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) was good enough to tell me that there was a point on which he wanted an explanation, and he asked me if I could deal in my speech with the question of existing creditors of Italy. The question of prewar creditors whose claims were dealt with through the Clearing is part of the much larger question of the settlement of all outstanding claims against Italy. These are matters which will have to be taken up with the Italian Government in due course, and the interests of this particular group of creditors will be taken fully into account. It is clear—and this is the assurance I should like to give my right hon. Friend—that no arrangement for a settlement which may be devised could be brought into force without the consent of Parliament, and there will therefore be full opportunity for this House to discuss these questions at the proper time. Accordingly, the immediate action which is required is to remove, without prejudice at all to any future arrangements which may have to be made, the obvious anomaly which would arise from leaving the existing Treasury Order in operation. The Order now before Parliament has under Article 4 of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, to be laid before the House and must be approved by Resolutions passed by each House within 28 days in order that it may continue to have effect. I therefore ask that this Order be approved.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrenee: The assurance which the Financial Secretary has given does, I think, fully meet the point I raised, and, therefore, I offer no objection to this Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Clearing Office (Italy) Amendment Order, 1943, dated 8th October, 1943, made by the Treasury under Sections 1 and 3 of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, a copy of which was presented to this House on 12th October, be approved.

TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT, 1921

Resolved,
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the conduct before the Hereford Juvenile Court of the proceedings against Craddock and others, with particular reference to the responsibility for the irregularities which led to the finding of guilt against Craddock being quashed by the Divisional Court."—[The Attorney-General.]

UNESTABLISHED WAR DEPART MENT EMPLOYEES, MALTA AND GIBRALTAR.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Sir James Edmondson.]

Mr. William Brown: On list September last I asked the Secretary of State for War whether he was aware that Mr. Joseph Samut, a Maltese clerk on the War Department establishment of Malta, was being discharged at the age of 66½ years after serving for over 45 years, without a penny of pension. I also inquired at the same time whether he knew that Mr. Joseph Pisharello, another Maltese civil servant, was also being retired, after 40 years service at Gibraltar, without a pension? The Minister replied that under the terms of the agreement with the staff associations these men were not eligible for establishment and, therefore, could not be considered for pension. I then gave notice that I would raise the matter on the Adjournment, and I do so now.
In order that the House may understand this point, I should like to explain that in the English public service civil servants are divided into two categories, established and unestablished. The established men have a claim for pension. Unestablished men do not get a pension, but it is the essence of the Civil Service arrangements at home that unestablished civil servants are confined to temporary work. It is recognised that there may be need for a temporary fringe of unestablished officers, but where the work is permanent it is an accepted principle that the staff should be established. That principle has been reaffirmed over and over again by Royal Commissions which have inquired into the Civil Service. In Malta there are employed two types of civil servants. There are those who are


sent out from England to serve in the Admiralty, the War Office or the Air Ministry, and there is also a substantial number of locally recruited Maltese clerks. The English civil servant goes out there as an established man and is, therefore, eligible for pension. But as regards the Maltese, that is not the case. Until 1939 there was a rule which laid it down that not more than 10 per cent. of the locally entered Maltese staffs could be established at any point of time. Ninety per cent. of them must remain unestablished, whether the work they were doing was permanent or temporary and whether they spent a life-time in the work of public service in Malta or not.
In 1939 a new agreement was made which represented some improvement on that situation. Under this agreement it was decided that a man might be established when one of two conditions, plus another, were satisfied. First of all, if he secured promotion from the basic grade—Grade 2 or Grade I—that would qualify him for establishment. Or alternatively if, without getting promoted, they put in 20 years' service, again they would have a claim to be established civil servants. But there was a third condition, which was that at the time when they were put forward for establishment after doing 20 years they must not be older than 55 years of age, and they must after establishment be able to put in ten years reckonable service for superannuation purposes. That last clause cuts across the earlier clause and would deny establishment to men who in other circumstances might obtain it. But, even if no difficulty arises, the net result of this 20 years' qualification is that to-day only a relatively small proportion of Maltese clerks are establishment, and the proportion must continue to be small just as long as this restriction lasts. I am a little sorry for the Financial Secretary, because I am confronting him with a child which is not wholly his. It is largely a Treasury baby, and, as I have said before, whatever issue you touch, you will find the evil hand of the Treasury behind it somewhere sooner or later, and the Treasury is really the blackguard of this piece and not the hon. Gentleman who is going to answer me.
This does not only affect Malta. The same thing arises at Gibraltar, Simonstown and Trincomalee, and the same

problem will also arise before long in Cyprus. These are all key points of Empire, and Malta, in particular, is an island to which we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude for the magnificent way in which it has resisted the efforts of the enemy in this war. I think the least the House ought to do when dealing with the Maltese civil servants is to apply to them the same principle as it applies when dealing with English civil servants. The principle is twofold. First, if the State keeps in its service for a life-time of service until an advanced age a civil servant, it does not turn him out at the end without a penny of pension, and, if that is proper for me as a civil servant, it is equally proper for my Maltese brother engaged on similar work in the same establishment. This disparity of treatment is responsible for a great deal of difficulty in Malta. They resent it very strongly. When I visited the island just before the war—I was the first British Labour leader to visit it for many years—I found that this unnecessary and indefensible regulation constituted a political problem. It exascerbated unnecessarily relations between the Maltese people and ourselves. When we sought to get better arrangements we were given a number of reasons why what was done was the best that could be done. One was that the future of Malta was uncertain, that the Navy might move away, and it might cease to be a great naval establishment. At a later stage we were told it was uncertain whether we could hold Malta and that it might cease to be an English possession. The second issue is resolved. Malta will remain a British possession, and there is no doubt that its geographical position determines that it must remain a great naval centre as well. So that element of uncertainty which was used as an argument against us no longer exists.
The second argument implied that there was some doubt about the loyalty of the Maltese, and therefore one had to be much more careful about establishing a Maltese civil servant than establishing an English one. The short answer to that is that if there was the slightest doubt about the loyalty of a Maltese in a great naval establishment he ought not to be there, on security grounds, but I imagine that neither my hon. and learned Friend nor anybody else will any longer question the loyalty of the Maltese. They have demonstrated their magnificent loyalty


and magnificent tenacity during the war. The third argument used against us was that the Maltese clerk, in contradistinction to the English clerk, was immobile, that is to say that while you could transfer an English civil servant where you liked it was much more difficult to transfer Maltese civil servants, because they were recruited for local service. That argument has now gone by the board, for we have during the war transferred many Maltese to Alexandria at the time the Fleet had to be moved there upon naval grounds.
I want to leave my hon. and learned Friend time for his reply, but I want to draw this contrast. In England after the last war we were left with a very large number of temporary civil servants to whom subsequently we gave establishment, a proper thing to do and I am not criticising it; but the time came when we had to decide what length of temporary service should qualify a temporary clerk in Britain to be transfered to the established ranks. It was not I who laid it down or the Treasury, but the Tomlin Commission on the Civil Service, a Royal Commission which sat in 1929–31, which made a recommendation that four years should constitute the necessary period of service to qualify for transfer to the establishment. It seems to me to be wholly indefensible to make it four years for the English civil servant and 20 years for the Maltese. There is no rhyme or reason about the 20 years. What it really represents is the least the Treasury thought it could give at the time, and it does not correspond with any fact or factor of the situation in Malta or elsewhere.
In this House we have paid great tributes to Malta. They have fallen from the lips of the First Lord of the Admiralty, from the Prime Minister and I think from the Secretary of State for War, and in any case we all know the debt we owe to Malta. By all means send them George Crosses, by all means pay them tributes; but the best sort of tribute we can pay to the Maltese is to stop doing them an obvious injustice. So I ask my hon. and learned Friend for two things. I ask him first to give an assurance that these two men, Mr. Joseph Samut, 66½ years of age, with 45 years' service, shall not be allowed to depart from His Majesty's service without a pension, and similarly that Mr. Joseph Pisharello, with 40 years'

service, shall not be allowed to depart without pension. Secondly, I ask my hon. and learned Friend not only to put those concrete cases right, but I ask him, in common with the other Departments concerned, to impress upon His Majesty's Treasury that it is vitally necessary that we should approach the whole problem of the establishment of locally entered staffs in the great naval bases of the Empire from a different point of view, and lay it down that in the same way as an English civil servant who is engaged for permanent work is given permanent status and establishment so the Maltese civil servant who is engaged in His Majesty's establishment, or those at Gibraltar, Cyprus and elsewhere, shall be treated on the same basis and not differentiated against solely on the ground, and this is the only ground, that he is of slightly different blood from our own and therefore ought to be treated in a different way. The level of educational tests for entry is high in Malta, and higher in some respects than in this country. These people have rendered magnificent service, and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to put right these two cases that I have brought to his notice and to make the most energetic representations to the Treasury to ensure that establishment arrangements in Malta are brought into line with those applying to the Civil Service here.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: I saw this Motion about Malta on the Order Paper, and I particularly stayed behind that I might say a word or two in support of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown). I visited Malta about a year before the war, and a good many of the injustices which the people felt there that they suffered under were brought to my notice. I made a mental promise that whenever Malta or Maltese affairs came to be discussed here, I would do my best to be present. About a month ago I put a Question down to the Prime Minister asking him about the injustices suffered under by the Maltese who wished to enlist in the Army, Navy or Air Services. Those injustices are felt very keenly.
This is only another of the injustices under which the Maltese suffer at the present moment, and I am going to say, as the hon. Gentleman did: Do the Maltese deserve some improvement in their conditions? From their record, I say, Most certainly they do. When I went to


Malta I met a good many of the admirals and senior naval and military officers, and I came to the conclusion that Malta would never hold in this war. It was a continual surprise to me, the gallant battle they put up when they held out. Instead of giving the Maltese pats on the back, crosses and paragraphs in the newspapers, let us do something in this House now. There is nobody who can do it except ourselves. I give my hearty support to the hon. Member who has spoken in support of these civil servants who have spent their lives in the service of the Crown.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) raised two specific cases. I think he would be the first to agree with me when I state that the 1939 agreement to which he made reference was not directed towards the Maltese only. It was an agreement which, rightly or wrongly, was reached in August, 1939, by the National Whitley Council official and staff sides, regarding the establishment and pensionability under the Superannuation Acts of locally entered clerks, employed by the Defence Departments at stations in Europe, Bermuda and the Cape, including, of course, Gibraltar and Malta. That agreement was entered into and is operating to-day. Two questions have been addressed to me, first as to the necessity for altering the agreement, and secondly whether something should not be done for the two men to whom my hon. Friend made reference. I personally fully appreciate the claims of men, such as Mr. Samut, who have rendered continuous good service to the State over a long period of years. I would go further and say that I think it is common ground in this House that the Maltese have made a signal contribution to our war effort and that the defence of Malta, which I think will be regarded by historians as something in the nature of an epic, was shared in by those for whom my hon. Friend speaks; but that does not alter the fact that there is this agreement operating to-day. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not expect me, at this juncture, to rise and say that we are not going to implement that agreement, whatever may be the merits of particular cases. When my hon. Friend asked his question originally, as a supplementary, he said that if the Treasury were bound by the agreement, none the less it had unlimited power to count as established service periods of

unestablished service, at least to the extent of half the unestablished service.
That is quite correct, but I am informed that the Treasury take the view that it is the intention of the Superannuation Acts that pensions should not be granted in cases where all or almost all the service has been on a non-established basis. The Treasury, I am told, has therefore had a very old rule which I am unformed also is well known to the staff side, that staff who have attained the age of 55, or exceptionally 60, cannot at that point come forward for establishment and consequently pensionable status. The hon. Member knows well that that rule applies to the staff of all Departments. All I can say that if he desires to have the rule or the agreement to which he has referred altered, it is obviously not the responsibility of the War Office but of the Treasury and must be done, I suggest, either by direct approach to the Treasury or through the medium of the Whitley Council. May I come to the two specific cases?

Mr. W. Brown: Before my hon. and learned Friend leaves the general point, may I say that while certainly we will do that, his Department has great power of recommendation to the Treasury, and I hope he will back us up.

Mr. Henderson: I am quite sure that this discussion will be duly recorded and will be read by those who will be concerned with, the problem to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. May I just deal with the two specific cases which gave rise to this discussion? In the case of Mr. Joseph Pisharello, he, on 7th July, 1942, completed 20 years' reckon-able service in a clerical capacity. On 15th February, 1942, he attained the age of 55 years. He was therefore still ineligible for establishment under the agreement. It has been decided however that a special exception can be made in his case, and steps are now being taken to establish him on his actual clerical service since 7th July, 1922.
In the other case, that of Mr. Samut, this gentleman, as my hon. Friend said, is 66 years of age to-day and was 63 years of age on 1st August, 1939, when the agreement was entered into, and establishment was limited to those under 60 years of age. He was clearly not eligible for consideration. He was not debarred by reason of insufficient service but by reason of the fact that he was 63 years of


age at the time the agreement was entered into. As the House has been told, the age limit accepted in the agreement was 60 years of age, and consequently I am afraid that in his case it is not going to be possible to have him established under the agreement.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that taking these two cases together the case of Mr. Samut is really a more monstrous injustice than the other?

Mr. Henderson: I cannot legislate on the basis of the fact of an injustice but on the fact of the agreement.

Mr. Smith: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give us an expression of his opinion?

Mr. Henderson: It is not my function to express an opinion but to state the

facts to the House so that they can make up their minds.

Mr. W. Brown: Is it not possible to go better than the agreement where justice requires it?

Mr. Henderson: I have suggested that the method of altering it is by agreement through action by the staff side of the Whitley Council.

Mr. Jennings: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this has disclosed some gross injustices in Malta and Gibraltar? I am amazed if a man can work for so many—

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.